The Issue Whether Respondent, Eve Management, Inc./KA and KM Development, Inc., denied Petitioners full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services offered at its place of public accommodation, in violation of sections 509.092 and 760.08, Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact Parties and Jurisdiction Petitioners are African Americans who reside in the State of Ohio, who visited Orlando, Florida, in June 2011 and stayed at Lake Eve Resort beginning on June 21, 2011. Respondent, Eve Management, Inc./KA and KM Development, Inc., was the owner of Lake Eve Resort, located at 12388 International Drive, Orlando, Florida, at all times relevant hereto. Each Petitioner filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the Commission as follows: Jessica Austin – July 20, 2012 Denise Austin – July 21, 2012 Tracie Austin – January 18, 2013 (Amended Complaint)2/ Bonlydia Jones – July 11, 2012 James Austin – July 31, 2012 Dionne Harrington – August 1, 2012 Esther Hall – January 28, 2013 (Amended Complaint)3/ Boniris McNeal – March 27, 2013 Summer McNeal – March 27, 2013 Derek McNeal – March 27, 2013 In each Complaint, the Petitioner alleges that the most recent date of discrimination is June 22, 2011. On June 21, 2012, Petitioners Esther Hall, Summer McNeal, Boniris McNeal, Derek McNeal, and Dionne Harrington, each filed a Technical Assistance Questionnaire (TAQ) with the Commission. Each TAQ is signed by the named Petitioner, is stamped received by the Commission on June 21, 2012, and contains the specific facts alleged to be an act of discrimination in the provision of public accommodation by Respondent. Allegations of Discrimination On or about May 23, 2011, Petitioner, Boniris McNeal, entered into a Standard Group Contract with Lake Eve Resort (the Resort) to reserve 15 Resort rooms for five nights at a discounted group rate beginning June 21, 2011.4/ The rooms were to accommodate approximately 55 members of her extended family on the occasion of the Boss/Williams/Harris family reunion. Petitioners traveled from Ohio to Orlando via charter bus, arriving at the Resort on the evening of June 21, 2011. Erika Bell, a relative of Petitioners, drove a rental car from Ohio to Orlando. She did not arrive in Orlando until June 22, 2011. Petitioners checked in to the Resort without incident. However, one family member, John Harris, was informed that the three-bedroom suite he had reserved for his family was not available due to a mistake in reservations. He was offered two two-bedroom suites to accommodate his family. Petitioner, Boniris McNeal, dined off-property on the evening of June 21, 2011, to celebrate her wedding anniversary. Petitioner, Bonlydia Jones, left the Resort property shortly after check-in to shop for groceries. Petitioners, Dionne Harrington and Esther Hall, were very tired after the long bus trip and went to bed early on June 21, 2011. Petitioner, Denise Austin, arrived in Orlando with the family on June 21, 2011. On the morning of June 22, 2011, Ms. Jones received a call from Mr. Harris, informing her that the Resort management wanted to speak with them about his room. That morning, Ms. Jones and Mr. Harris met with two members of Resort management, Amanda Simon and Marie Silbe. Mr. Harris was informed that he needed to change rooms to a three-bedroom suite, the accommodation he had reserved, which had become available. Mr. Harris disputed that he had to change rooms and argued that he was told at check-in the prior evening he would not have to move from the two two-bedroom suites he was offered when his preferred three-bedroom suite was not available. After some discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Harris would move his family to an available three-bedroom suite. The Resort provided an employee to assist with the move. Following the meeting with management, Ms. Jones went to the pool, along with Ms. Harrington and other members of the family. After a period of time which was not established at hearing, Mary Hall, one of Ms. Harrington’s relatives, came to the pool and informed Ms. Harrington that the family was being evicted from the Resort. Ms. Harrington left the pool and entered the lobby, where she observed police officers and members of Resort management. She approached a member of management and was informed that she and her family were being evicted from the Resort and must be off the property within an hour. Ms. Harrington left the lobby and returned to her room, where her mother, Ms. Hall was sleeping. Ms. Harrington informed Ms. Hall that the family was being evicted from the Resort and instructed Ms. Hall to pack her belongings. Ms. Jones’ cousin, Denise Strickland, came to the pool and informed her that the family was being evicted from the Resort. Ms. Jones entered the lobby where she was approached by a member of management, who introduced herself as the general manager and informed her that the family was being evicted. Ms. Jones requested a reason, but was informed by a police officer that the owners did not have to give a reason. In the lobby, Ms. Jones observed that an African- American male was stopped by police and asked whether he was with the Boss/Williams/Harris reunion. He was not a family member. Ms. Jones observed that no Caucasian guests were approached in the lobby by management or the police. Ms. Austin was on a trolley to lunch off-property on June 22, 2011, when she received a call from her cousin, Ms. Strickland. Ms. Strickland informed Ms. Austin that the family was being evicted from the Resort and she needed to return to pack her things. Ms. Austin returned to the property, where she was escorted to her room by a security guard and asked to pack her belongings. Ms. McNeal was en route to rent a car and buy groceries on June 22, 2011, when she received a call from Ms. Strickland informing her that the family was being evicted and that she needed to return to the Resort to pack her belongings. Upon her arrival at the Resort, Ms. McNeal entered the lobby. There, she was approached by Resort staff, asked whether she was with the Boss/Williams/Harris reunion, and informed that the Resort could not honor the reservations and the family was being evicted. Ms. McNeal observed that Caucasian guests entering the lobby were not approached by either the police or Resort management. Ms. McNeal was escorted to her room by both a police officer and a member of management and instructed to be out of the room within 30 minutes. Ms. McNeal inquired why they were being evicted, but was told by a police officer that the Resort was not required to give a reason. Erika Bell received a call from her mother, Ms. Austin, while en route to the Resort on June 22, 2011. Ms. Austin informed Ms. Bell that the family was being evicted from the Resort and asked her to call the Resort and cancel her reservation. Respondent gave no reason for evicting Petitioners from the property. Respondent refunded Petitioners’ money.
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: Finding that Respondent, Eve Management, Inc./KA and KM Development, Inc., committed an act of public accommodation discrimination in violation of sections 509.092 and 760.08, Florida Statutes (2011), against Petitioners Jessica Austin, Denise Austin, Tracie Austin, James Austin, Bonlydia Jones, Esther Hall, Boniris McNeal, Derek McNeal, Summer McNeal, and Dionne Harrington; and Prohibiting any future acts of discrimination by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2014, 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 28th day of May, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of race, national origin, or disability at Respondent’s place of public accommodation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a McDonald’s franchisee operating six McDonald’s restaurants in the Orlando area. At issue in this case is the restaurant referred to as the “Lockhart” store. The Lockhart McDonald’s is located on Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando, in a high-crime, low-income area. This McDonald’s has a history of problems with persons using the restaurant for purposes other than purchasing food and drink there to consume onsite. There has been a wide range of “other purposes” in the Lockhart McDonald’s history: sitting at the dining tables without ordering any food or drink; panhandling (asking customers if they have a spare dollar); bringing in drinks purchased elsewhere, topped off with refills stolen from the McDonald’s drink station; soliciting restaurant customers for prostitution; and using the bathrooms to ingest or inject illegal drugs, leaving behind used hypodermic needles and other paraphernalia. On two separate occasions, people overdosed on heroin in the bathrooms. To combat these problems, which hurt business, Mr. Vidler enlisted the help of his brother, an Orange County Deputy Sheriff, who conducted drug and prostitution stings to help clean up the restaurant. In addition, the Lockhart McDonald’s adopted a no-loitering policy, a no-solicitation policy, and a policy requiring that only food and drink purchased there may be consumed there. Notices of these policies are prominently displayed on signs at the restaurant. Respondent’s witnesses testified, credibly and consistently, that these policies are enforced uniformly and strictly, with the goal being to avoid the problems they have had with persons improperly using the restaurant’s facilities. As part of the enforcement procedure, if someone is observed seated at a table without any apparent McDonald’s food or drink items, after a few minutes a manager or other staff member will approach that person and politely inquire whether the person intends to make a purchase. Petitioner is a black woman who has been a customer at the Lockhart McDonald’s. She and her boyfriend, who is not black,2/ have gone there on occasion, made purchases, and enjoyed their meals, without incident. On the day in question, December 28, 2015, Petitioner and her boyfriend went to the Lockhart McDonald’s for breakfast. The restaurant was not very busy or crowded when they arrived, with perhaps one other customer in line and another customer seated at a table in the separate dining area. Petitioner went to the dining area, while her boyfriend went to the counter to place their order. The restaurant is fairly large, with physical and visual separation of the area where customers wait in line to place orders, pick up food, and get drinks at the drink station from the area where customers can go to sit at tables to consume their purchases. Behind the ordering counter on the employee side, there is a door used by employees to enter the dining area. Through a small window at the top of the door, a customer waiting in line at the counter might be able to glimpse a small portion of the dining area, but otherwise would not be able to see or hear what is going on in the dining area. Petitioner took a seat at a table by an outside window. She propped both of her feet up on the Corian window ledge and sat there gazing out the window. Eric Vidler, the operations manager of Respondent’s six restaurants, was in the Lockhart McDonald’s that morning. After Petitioner had taken her place by the window, Mr. Vidler and the Lockhart restaurant manager, Adam Allegroe, entered the dining area together to conduct a cleanliness walk-through. They saw Petitioner, taking note of her unusual positioning, with feet propped up on the windowsill,3/ staring out the window. They also noted that there was no sign of any McDonald’s food or drink purchases on the table or in her hands. After a few minutes, consistent with the restaurant’s policies and procedures, Mr. Vidler approached Petitioner and politely inquired whether she intended to make a purchase. She did not answer him.4/ Mr. Vidler and Mr. Allegroe testified that usually, when they make such an inquiry, the person will respond, but sometimes they do not respond. Since their goal is not to make a scene, offend, or embarrass anyone, under these circumstances they will usually walk away for a short period of time. If the person had no legitimate business there, then the person often will disappear at that point. Mr. Vidler and Mr. Allegroe retreated to the men’s and women’s bathrooms, where they spent three to five minutes conducting their cleanliness inspection. When Mr. Vidler and Mr. Allegroe returned to the dining area, Petitioner was still seated, positioned the same way, with her feet still propped up on the windowsill. She was still staring out the window, and still had no McDonald’s purchases on the table or in her hands. Mr. Vidler went back up to Petitioner, and following up on his prior statement to her, this time he told her, “Ma’am, if you are not going to be making a purchase today, then you are loitering and I need to ask you to leave.” Mr. Vidler testified credibly that this is how he always handles the second approach when the person does not answer his first inquiry. The message, though direct, was delivered in a calm tone. Mr. Vidler did not yell at Petitioner. He did not threaten to call the police or have her arrested. This time, Petitioner responded. She got up, flung a chair in Mr. Vidler’s direction with sufficient force so that the chair traveled some distance with all four chair legs four to six inches off the ground, until it fell against and partially on a half-wall that set off that portion of the dining area.5/ Petitioner also responded verbally, using an elevated voice to express her anger. Mr. Vidler said that she cursed, using a four-letter word. Although more than one year later he did not recall exactly which curse word or words she uttered, he did recall that her words were not nice. Mr. Allegroe corroborated Mr. Vidler’s recollection, testifying that Petitioner stood up, “slung” the chair in their direction, and “started speaking profanity.” (Tr. 83). She then left the restaurant. The testimony of Mr. Vidler and Mr. Allegroe describing their two encounters with Petitioner was corroborated by Shahanna Owensby, a guest services department manager for the Lockhart McDonald’s. Ms. Owensby was seated at a table in the dining area, working on pricing and tagging merchandise, when she noticed Petitioner. She observed Mr. Vidler and Mr. Allegroe conducting their cleanliness walk-through. She observed Mr. Vidler’s initial approach to Petitioner. She heard Mr. Vidler ask Petitioner if she was going to be making a purchase, and confirmed that Petitioner did not respond. She saw Mr. Vidler and Mr. Allegroe keep walking after that, back in the direction of the bathrooms. She observed Mr. Vidler approach Petitioner a second time, estimated at four to eight minutes later. She heard him tell Petitioner that if she was not making a purchase, he needed to ask her to leave. She saw Petitioner stand up, pick up a chair, and fling, throw, or toss it: “It was up in the air and it was off the ground, by her hand.” (Tr. 98). By the time of Petitioner’s stormy exit from the restaurant, a family--a woman with some younger children--had entered the dining area and was seated near Ms. Owensby. After Petitioner left, Ms. Owensby apologized to the family, who had witnessed the scene and had been exposed to the profanity used by Petitioner within their hearing range. After Petitioner left the restaurant, her boyfriend walked into the dining area with the food he had purchased. The boyfriend described what happened next: Jennifer, my wife, was not sitting at the table. I thought she was at the--in the bathroom. I put my tray on the opposite side of the table. I was sitting to the left, I guess, or the right. I was sitting on the other side. And that’s when I saw Mr. Vidler with a surprised face, you know, like wow-- Q. [Mr. Millan]. Uh-huh. A. --what happened here. So he approached me and he said that he didn’t know--that he didn’t know. And I asked him that he didn’t know what. He said that he didn’t know that she was my wife, that she was there with me. (Tr. 108). At that point, Petitioner (whom Robert Millan clarified is his girlfriend, not his wife) knocked on the restaurant window, signaling for him to come outside. He went out to her and asked what happened. She told him that that person [Mr. Vidler] offended her. When asked how he offended her, Robert Milan said that Petitioner responded as follows: She said he told her that what was she doing there, if she was going to buy food or if she was just going to sit there. And those were the same words that he told me that he told her.[6/] And then when I came back inside the store, I went and I asked him, you know, to explain to me what was going on. And he said that. You know, that--he said that he didn’t know that she was there with me. And he apologized to me. He asked me if he -- if he could go apologize to my wife, Jennifer. And I really told him that I think that was beyond apology because she was like, you know, angry. So he said, well here, I give you my card and you can call the office and see what, you know, we can do about it. (Tr. 109-110). For some unexplained reason (perhaps a mistake filling the order or perhaps a request for customized food), Petitioner’s boyfriend waited ten minutes at the ordering counter, where he was not able to see or hear the encounters in the separate dining area. He was not even aware that Petitioner had stormed out in anger, although he confirmed that she was, indeed, angry when he went outside. Robert Millan did call Respondent’s office, as suggested by Mr. Vidler, and spoke with the owner of the franchise. The owner also offered to apologize to Petitioner, but Robert Millan did not think she wanted to speak to anyone. The owner then offered a $50 gift card. The boyfriend said that he would ask Petitioner, but she refused the gesture. No evidence was presented of any racial statements made directly or indirectly to Petitioner, or of any racial overtones to any of the statements made directly or indirectly to Petitioner. The circumstantial evidence presented does not support an inference that Respondent intentionally discriminated against Petitioner based on her race. Instead, all of the circumstantial evidence supports an inference that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of her race. Respondent has a no-discrimination, no-harassment policy that is enforced as to its employees, customers and potential customers. The Lockhart McDonald’s has a very diverse staff. A comparison of the number of restaurant employees who are members of the classes of white, black, or Hispanic, the largest category represented by the restaurant’s employees is black; the next- largest category is Hispanic; white employees are in the minority. As to gender, female employees outnumber male employees. Manager positions are spread among white and black males, and white, black, and Hispanic females. The operations manager in charge of Respondent’s six restaurants, Mr. Vidler, is a white male as is the restaurant’s manager, Mr. Allegroe. The other employee testifying at hearing, Ms. Owensby, is the restaurant’s guest services manager and she is a black female. The diversity of the restaurant’s staff is circumstantial evidence, though not particularly weighty evidence, suggesting a general absence of intent to discriminate on the basis of race.7/ More compelling circumstantial evidence was provided by Mr. Vidler, who is the individual accused of discriminating against Petitioner because she is black. Mr. Vidler testified with great sincerity that Petitioner’s accusation is not only unfounded, but it hits a particular sore spot with him. Although he is a white male, his daughter is half-black. He has experienced the pain of discrimination based on race, with unkind questions, or worse, directed to him or to his daughter, because their races do not match. This personal fact shared by Mr. Vidler is compelling circumstantial evidence giving rise to a inference that he would not intentionally discriminate against Petitioner based on her race. The evidence strongly supports a finding, and it is so found, that Mr. Vidler’s December 28, 2015, encounters with Petitioner were the reasonable implementation of Respondent’s reasonable policies for its Lockhart restaurant to ensure that persons using the restaurant’s facilities are there for the purpose of purchasing and consuming food and drink. The credible, consistent testimony of Mr. Vidler and Respondent’s other employees who testified is that the no-loitering policy is applied uniformly to all persons, regardless of race, nationality, gender, disability, or any other classification, who are not apparently customers in that they have no McDonald’s food or drink purchases. These persons are asked whether they intend to make a purchase, and if they do not respond in some fashion that they are indeed there to purchase food and/or drink, they are told that if they are not there to make a purchase, they are loitering and will have to be asked to leave.8/ Petitioner has only herself to blame for not making clear to Mr. Vidler that she was there with her boyfriend, who was in line at the counter ordering their breakfast. That would have ended the matter. That Mr. Vidler only took the action he did because he did not know Petitioner was there with her boyfriend was perhaps most convincingly established by Robert Millan’s testimony describing the utter surprise on Mr. Vidler’s face when he realized that Petitioner had, in fact, been waiting for someone who had been purchasing food. The undersigned finds as a matter of ultimate fact that Respondent did not intentionally discriminate against Petitioner based on her race (the only protected class proven at hearing) or any other classification that might have applied to Petitioner but was not proven at hearing.9/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner Jennifer M. Foster-Garvey. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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, 2017.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Community Housing Initiative, Inc. (Respondent), committed a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner, Karen Lee Krason (Petitioner), in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact On or about June 11, 2009, Petitioner filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint with the Commission. Pursuant to the Commission's procedure, an investigation of the matter was completed that resulted in a Notice of Determination of No Cause. Essentially, the Commission found that based upon the allegations raised by Petitioner there was no cause from which it could be found that Respondent had violated the Florida Fair Housing Act. Thereafter, Petitioner elected to file a Petition for Relief to challenge the determination and to seek relief against Respondent for the alleged violation. The Commission then forwarded the matter to DOAH for formal proceedings. DOAH issued a Notice of Hearing that was provided to all parties at their addresses of record. The postal service did not return the notices as undelivered. It is presumed the parties received notice of the hearing date, time, and location. Petitioner did not appear at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's claim of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 4th day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Lee Krason 1715 Erin Court Northeast Palm Bay, Florida 32905 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 COPIES FURNISHED BY CERTIFIED MAIL Nicole Tenpenny, Registered Agent Community Housing Initiative, Inc. 3033 College Wood Drive Melbourne, Florida 32941 (Certified No. 91 7108 2133 3935 7995 3000) Nicole Tenpenny, Registered Agent Community Housing Initiative, Inc. Post Office Box 410522 Melbourne, Florida 32941-0522 (Certified No. 91 7108 2133 3935 7995 2997) Michael Rogers, Officer/Director Community Housing Initiative, Inc. 1890 Palm Bay Road, Northeast Palm Bay, Florida 32905 (Certified No. 91 7108 2133 3935 7995 2980)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Publix Super Markets, Inc. (“Publix”), violated section 760.08, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on his race, color, sex, and/or handicap.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black male who lives in Deltona, Florida. Despite the assertion in his Public Accommodation Complaint of Discrimination, Petitioner offered no evidence that he has a disability or handicap. Petitioner testified that he had surgery for kidney stones in Daytona Beach on October 20, 2014. Respondent’s urologist prescribed Percocet (oxycodone and acetaminophen), a controlled substance, to control Respondent’s pain. The prescription from Petitioner’s urologist was not placed in evidence. On October 21, 2014, Petitioner went to the emergency room at Fish Memorial Hospital in Orange City and, there, was given a prescription for 12 tablets of Percocet. The prescription directed that the medication be taken once every six hours, meaning that the emergency room physician was prescribing a three-day supply of Percocet. A copy of this prescription was entered into evidence, and the parties agree that this is the prescription that Petitioner later presented to the Publix pharmacy. Petitioner testified that his mother drove him to his surgery and, apparently, to the emergency room. She placed the prescription in her purse for safe keeping. A few days later, when Petitioner wanted to get the prescription filled, his mother could not find the prescription. Petitioner stated that his mother forgot that she had changed purses. When she changed purses again a couple of weeks later, Petitioner’s mother found the prescription. On November 15, 2014, Petitioner presented the emergency room prescription to the pharmacy technician at Publix Store 0667 in Deltona. The technician was aware that the pharmacist gave special scrutiny to emergency room prescriptions. The technician therefore took the prescription directly to the pharmacist, James MacDonald. Mr. MacDonald was the pharmacy manager of Store 0667 and at the time of the events at issue had been a pharmacist for 23 years with no record of discipline against his license. Mr. MacDonald testified that, as a general matter, he performs a prospective drug utilization review on every prescription. Simply put, this process insures that the prescription is for a legitimate medical purpose and that it is being filled for the person who presented it at the pharmacy. Mr. MacDonald stated that he is not required to fill every prescription that is presented to him and that he declines to fill prescriptions seven to ten times per week. The chief reasons for declining to fill prescriptions are the pharmacist’s inability to verify the prescription with the prescribing physician and the pharmacist’s determination that the prescription calls for a type or quantity of a controlled substance that is inappropriate to the patient’s condition. Mr. MacDonald testified that during the two years prior to November 2014, nearby pharmacies at CVS and Walgreens had stopped filling prescriptions for controlled substances, which placed an added burden on Publix to fill these prescriptions. There were several doctors in the area writing prescriptions for large amounts of controlled substances. Mr. MacDonald was also being presented with many prescriptions for controlled substances from people he did not know. All these factors contributed to his caution in filling prescriptions for controlled substances. Mr. MacDonald testified that a prescription from an emergency room visit usually provides for enough medication to get the patient through the emergency period, two or three days, after which the patient is instructed to see his primary care physician. Mr. MacDonald tended to decline to fill emergency room prescriptions that were presented more than a few days after the emergency room visit. When the technician presented him with Petitioner’s prescription, Mr. MacDonald told the technician that he would not fill it because it was more than three weeks old. The technician walked to the front window to convey this response to Petitioner, who did not take it well. Mr. MacDonald could hear Petitioner raising his voice and so went to the front to speak with Petitioner directly. Mr. MacDonald testified that the pharmacy was very busy, that he had customers ahead of Petitioner, and that having to come around and deal personally with Petitioner was putting him even farther behind in his work. Mr. MacDonald explained to Petitioner that the prescription was issued by an emergency room physician and was for a three-day supply of Percocet. He told Petitioner that he would have filled the prescription if he had presented it within a week of his emergency room visit, but that it was now three weeks later and this was clearly no longer an emergency situation. Petitioner testified that he told Mr. MacDonald that the prescription had been misplaced in his mother’s purse. Mr. MacDonald did not recall this explanation. Mr. MacDonald offered to call the emergency room physician and verify the prescription. Petitioner insisted that Mr. MacDonald either call the physician or fill the prescription immediately, and stated that he would not move from the pharmacy window until Mr. MacDonald had complied with his ultimatum. Mr. MacDonald stated that he had customers ahead of Petitioner and could not drop everything to please him at that moment. In light of Petitioner’s persistence, Mr. MacDonald reiterated his refusal to fill the prescription. He handed the prescription back to Petitioner and threatened to call the police if Petitioner did not leave. Petitioner was unmoved. Mr. MacDonald did not call the police but did page the assistant store manager, Christopher Bloyen, to intercede in the situation. Mr. Bloyen testified that he came to the pharmacy. He saw that Petitioner seemed very upset and was speaking very loudly. Petitioner complained that Mr. MacDonald would not fill his prescription. Mr. Bloyen spoke briefly with Mr. MacDonald, who explained why he was refusing to fill the prescription. At the hearing, Mr. Bloyen explained that the pharmacy in any Publix store is an autonomous department and that, as a store manager, he lacks the training or expertise to second- guess the decision of his pharmacist. Publix relies on the professional expertise and discretion of its pharmacists to determine whether or not to fill a prescription. Mr. Bloyen informed Petitioner that he was going to support the decision of Mr. MacDonald not to fill the prescription. At this point, Petitioner left the store. Neither Mr. MacDonald nor Mr. Bloyen had met Petitioner before this incident. Petitioner did not disclose to them that he had any disability or handicap, and none was visibly apparent. Mr. MacDonald testified that his decision not to fill Petitioner’s prescription was not based on Petitioner’s race, color, or sex. In fact, Mr. MacDonald’s initial decision not to fill the prescription was made and announced to the technician before Mr. MacDonald laid eyes on Petitioner. Petitioner’s race, color, sex, and alleged handicap or disability played no part in Mr. MacDonald’s decision not to fill the prescription. Mr. MacDonald did not make any disparaging remarks about Petitioner during their exchange, and no employee of Publix made racially derogatory or racially related comments to Petitioner. Petitioner testified that he was able to get the prescription filled at a Winn-Dixie pharmacy shortly after this incident. Therefore, Petitioner suffered no economic loss or quantifiable damages as a result of Publix’s refusal to fill his prescription. Petitioner testified that he seeks only an apology from Publix. Publix Store 0667 does not contain a restaurant or lunch counter and there is no designated area for customers to consume food on the premises. The store does contain a deli, but the food items sold from the deli are not intended for on- site consumption at Publix. The store has no picnic tables or other seating at which customers might consume food on the premises. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Publix for refusing to fill his prescription. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that the stated reasons for not filling the prescription were a pretext for discrimination based on Petitioner’s race, color, sex, handicap, or disability. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Publix discriminated against him in violation of section 760.08.
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 finding that Publix Super Markets, Inc., is not a public accommodation under the facts of this case or, in the alternative, that Publix Super Markets, Inc., did not commit any unlawful acts of public accommodation discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 2nd day of February, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Steak n Shake Restaurant (“Steak n Shake”), violated section 760.08, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on his race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white male who lives in Ormond Beach, Florida. Petitioner testified that he had been a regular customer of the Steak n Shake at 120 Williamson Boulevard in Ormond Beach for about four years. Petitioner entered the restaurant on March 30, 2015, and was seated by server Amanda Hobbs, a black female. Petitioner testified that neither Ms. Hobbs nor any other server would wait on him. He saw Ms. Hobbs take the order of a black couple who came into the restaurant after he did. Petitioner complained to the manager, Mark Regoli, a male of mixed race. Petitioner testified that he told Mr. Regoli that the service had been poor for several months, and complained about not being served on this occasion. Petitioner stated that Mr. Regoli accused him of being “loud,” but explained that he is hearing-impaired and may sometimes speak in a loud voice. Petitioner testified that Mr. Regoli became angry, “got up in my face,” and blocked Petitioner from leaving the restaurant. Petitioner testified that he left the restaurant. It was only later that he learned that the police had been called by someone at Steak n Shake. Counsel for Steak n Shake did not cross-examine Petitioner. Steak n Shake called no witnesses. Steak n Shake’s documentary evidence consisted of hearsay witness statements that cannot be considered in the absence of admissible evidence that the hearsay may be said to supplement or explain. Therefore, Petitioner’s narrative is the only sworn, admissible evidence before this tribunal. Though Petitioner’s testimony was clearly a self-serving version of the events that occurred at the Steak n Shake on March 30, 2015, it is the only version of events that may be considered under the rules of evidence. Petitioner’s testimony lacks complete credibility only when one compares it with the excluded witness statements of the Steak n Shake employees. If one considers Petitioner’s testimony standing alone, as this tribunal must, the worst one can say is that it is one-sided and incomplete. This state of affairs is not the fault of Petitioner, who was under no obligation to tell anything other than his side of the story. Petitioner represented himself and so is not entitled to attorney’s fees. Petitioner may be entitled to an award of costs.
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: Finding that Respondent, Steak n Shake Restaurant, committed an act of public accommodations discrimination against Petitioner, Virgil W. Phillips; Prohibiting any future acts of discrimination by Respondent; and Awarding Petitioner his costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 April, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful discrimination in the provision of services or facilities in connection with his dwelling based on his handicap, and whether Respondent refused to make reasonable accommodations in its rules, policies, practices, or services necessary to afford Petitioner equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a homeowner in the Royal Highlands community in Leesburg, Florida, and has been a member of the RHPOA since moving into his home in April 2001.1/ From September 2010, through February 2011, Petitioner served on the RHPOA Board of Directors. Respondent is a property owners? association, membership in which is limited to property owners in the Royal Highlands residential community in Leesburg, Florida. There are 1,499 homes in the Royal Highlands community. The community is divided into twelve “districts.” Respondent?s Board of Directors (Board) consists of one representative from each of the twelve districts. Meetings of the Board are held monthly, except for August when community activities are typically sparsely attended. Leland Management is a community association management company that provides management services to the RHPOA along with other community associations. Petitioner alleged that he suffers from a disability because he walks with the use of a cane, and that his ability to speak is impaired as a lingering effect of a 2004 neck surgery that involved insertion of an endotracheal tube during and immediately after the procedure. During the month of February 2011, Petitioner was running for reelection to the RHPOA Board of Directors. On the day of the election, and prior to the vote of the membership, Petitioner appeared at the RHPOA meeting to make a final statement and thank his supporters. He walked to the front of the community meeting room, known as the Great Hall, but did not want to take the steps up to the elevated stage for fear that he might lose his balance and fall off. Petitioner was given a microphone and he thanked his supporters from the base of the stage. Afterwards, he walked back to his seat. Petitioner was not reelected to the Board, but continued to attend meetings as a member of the RHPOA. A monthly meeting of the RHPOA was held on July 13, 2011. The agenda included four items, including an item that would authorize the Board of Directors to retain legal counsel in the event a threatened lawsuit was filed against Bob Fitzpatrick, who was then the president of the RHPOA. The nature of the potential lawsuit was not in evidence, except that it involved a complaint filed with the Lake County Sheriff by Petitioner against Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Fitzpatrick recused himself from the vote, since any legal fees would be expended on his behalf as president. John Banahan, then the vice-president of the RHPOA, acted as chair during the consideration and vote on the agenda item. The RHPOA allows members to speak regarding any issue on the agenda. Members must sign a “Sign-Up Sheet to Speak to Agenda Item” for each item on which they wish to be heard. Members are allowed three minutes to speak on each issue for which they have signed up. The minutes regarding a particular agenda item typically reflect only whether a motion was made, who seconded the motion, who voted, and the results of the vote. When there is a significant amount of discussion, the minutes may, as did the minutes for the legal counsel agenda item of the July 13, 2011 meeting, include something no more detailed than “[m]uch discussion, residents and Board Members.” Neither the comments of property owners nor the discussions of the Board members as to an agenda item are recorded in the minutes of meetings of the RHPOA. When Petitioner was on the Board, he would routinely take notes at meetings, and then destroy the notes after the meeting was concluded. That was consistent with the practice described by other testifying members of the Board. Petitioner attended the July 13, 2011 meeting of the RHPOA with his wife. He entered the meeting room on his own power and without difficulty, though he used a cane, signed up at the door to speak on the agenda item regarding the Board?s proposal to retain legal counsel, and took a seat at one of the tables. Petitioner made no request for assistance of any kind at the time he signed up to speak. Stacey Peach attended the July 13, 2012 meeting as a representative of Leland Management. Ms. Peach periodically attends meetings of the various associations served by Leland Management. Her attendance at the July 13, 2012 RHPOA meeting was coincidental. Ms. Peach was seated at a table in front of Petitioner. When it was his turn to speak on the legal counsel agenda item, Petitioner was recognized by Mr. Banahan. Petitioner announced, without assistance of a microphone, that he could not go to the podium. Mr. Banahan noted “confusion” in the audience, but did not realize what was going on with regard to Petitioner?s request to speak on the agenda item, though he understood that Petitioner was unable to come to the podium at the front of the room. Mr. Banahan testified convincingly that he had no problem with Petitioner speaking from his seat. He was aware of at least two other instances in which a microphone was taken to an attendee of a Board meeting so as to allow them to speak while seated, one of which occurred when he was a member of the Board. Ms. Peach heard Petitioner state that he was not able to go to the podium to offer his comments. She thereupon got a portable microphone and handed it to Petitioner. Petitioner asked Ms. Peach if she would speak on his behalf. Petitioner had not spoken with Ms. Peach earlier, and his request caught her off guard. Not knowing what Petitioner wanted her to say, she declined to speak for him. Her refusal was based on surprise and uncertainty, and not on any discriminatory motive. After Ms. Peach declined to speak on Petitioner?s behalf, Petitioner took the microphone provided to him, and offered his comments on the agenda item from his seat. Petitioner testified that as long as the microphone was working, he saw no reason why he would not have been heard. Except for Ms. Hoffman, whose testimony is discussed below, the witnesses who were asked indicated they had no problem hearing what Petitioner had to say, though none could remember the substance. Petitioner testified that he made a specific request of Mr. Banahan to allow someone to speak on his behalf, and that Mr. Banahan refused the request. Petitioner?s testimony was contradicted by Ms. Peach, who was directly involved in the incident; Mr. Norden, who was seated next to Petitioner; Mr. Reichel, who attended the meeting as a Board member; and Mr. Banahan. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that no request for another person to speak on Petitioner?s behalf was made to any member of the Board, and that the only such request was made, without prior notice, to Ms. Peach. Petitioner?s claim that his request was denied by Mr. Banahan was supported only by the testimony of Ms. Hoffman. However, Ms. Hoffman?s testimony was undermined by the fact that her overall account of the incident differed in several significant and material respects from the testimony of other witnesses, including that of Petitioner. For example, Ms. Hoffman indicated that Ms. Peach was not asked to speak for Petitioner, that Petitioner asked someone seated next to him to speak, that Petitioner had difficulty reading his notes, that Petitioner was unable to complete his comments, and that Petitioner?s speech was, at best, marginal. Whether Ms. Hoffman?s description of events was the result of a poor vantage point or of poor memory, it is not credited. Mr. Banahan testified that if Petitioner had been unable to speak, he would have allowed someone to read a statement on his behalf.2/ However, Mr. Banahan testified that he was not asked to make such an accommodation, and that Petitioner was able to comment on the agenda item from his seat. Mr. Banahan?s testimony is credible and is accepted. Mr. Banahan testified that he has known Petitioner from his service as a member of the Board and never perceived him as having a handicap. Mr. Banahan knew that Petitioner walked with a cane. However, Mr. Banahan?s wife walks with a cane and he does not consider her to have a handicap. Petitioner provided Respondent with no medical records, letters from his physicians, or competent evidence of any kind to establish that he had a disability or that he required an accommodation in order to participate in the July 13, 2011 meeting, nor did he produce any such evidence at the hearing. At the hearing, based upon the undersigned's observation, Petitioner had little or no difficulty walking or speaking. Petitioner failed to prove that he has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or that he was regarded by any director or member of the RHPOA as having any such physical impairment. To the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner does not suffer from a handicap as defined in the Fair Housing Act. Ultimate Findings of Fact There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing that Petitioner suffered from a handicap that hindered his ability to actively participate in the July 13, 2011 RHPOA meeting. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing that Respondent knew of any alleged handicap or regarded Petitioner as being handicapped. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing that Respondent failed to reasonably accommodate Petitioner when he asserted that he would not be able to walk to the podium. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Petitioner made no direct request to any member of the RHPOA Board of Directors to allow someone to speak on his behalf. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Petitioner was able to clearly state his comments on the legal representation agenda item by using the portable microphone provided to him by Ms. Peach. The evidence did not establish that Petitioner was the subject of unlawful discrimination in the provision of services or facilities in connection with his dwelling based on his handicap, or that Respondent refused to make reasonable accommodations in its rules, policies, practices or services necessary to afford Petitioner equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling.
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. 2012H0158. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2012.
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.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Townsend Seafood, violated section 760.08, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race and/or her sex.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black woman who lives in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner testified that she frequently waits at a bus stop adjacent to a strip mall on Townsend Boulevard in Jacksonville, across the street from a Publix Supermarket. In 2017, Townsend Seafood occupied the end of the strip mall nearest the bus stop. Townsend Seafood was a seafood market and restaurant. Petitioner testified that Ahmed Al Janaby, the apparent proprietor of Townsend Seafood,3/ repeatedly accosted her on the public walkway near the bus stop. In early May 2017, Mr. Al Janaby demanded that Petitioner remove a Publix grocery cart from the bus stop. Petitioner responded that she needed the cart because she has a chronic back disease and was unable to carry the several bags of groceries she had in the cart. Furthermore, the cart was on public property, not Mr. Al Janaby’s premises, and Petitioner knew that a Publix employee would retrieve the cart after she got on the bus. On Memorial Day, 2017, Petitioner stopped by Publix on her way home from festivities downtown. As she stood on the public walkway near the bus stop, Mr. Al Janaby came out of his premises and demanded that Petitioner move. When Petitioner declined, Mr. Al Janaby began insulting her choice of clothing, stating that she looked like a “whore.” Petitioner responded by calling Mr. Al Janaby’s mother a whore. At that point, Mr. Al Janaby spat at Petitioner. On July 4, 2017, Mr. Al Janaby again confronted Petitioner on the public walkway near the bus stop, demanding that she move. On this occasion, Mr. Al Janaby used what Petitioner called “the N-word.” When she threatened to call the police, he retreated to his business, but not before again spitting in her direction. On August 21, 2017, Mr. Al Janaby assaulted Petitioner with a broom, which resulted in Petitioner’s toe being broken. This incident also occurred on the public walkway near the bus stop. Petitioner testified that she had no choice but to use the bus stop near Mr. Al Janaby’s business. The bus stop itself was not covered, and the public walkway at the strip mall was the only place to seek refuge from the sun on hot days. Petitioner did most of her shopping in that area, and frequented one business in the same strip mall as Townsend Seafood. She did not shop or eat at Townsend Seafood. Judy Slonka, a white friend of Petitioner’s, testified that she once stood on the public walkway while waiting for the bus on a day when the heat index was over 100 degrees. Mr. Al Janaby emerged from Townsend Seafood and hit her with a broom, saying that she was obstructing the entrance to his business. Petitioner testified that since the events described by her and Ms. Slonka, Townsend Seafood has relocated from the end of the strip mall to an interior storefront. Neither woman has had a problem with Mr. Al Janaby since he moved his business away from the bus stop. Petitioner’s testimony was credible as to the facts of the events she described. Ms. Slonka’s testimony was likewise credible. As the undersigned explained to Petitioner at the conclusion of the hearing, the problem is that the events they described do not meet the statutory definition of discrimination in a “place of public accommodation,” because they occurred on the public walkway outside of Townsend Seafood. Mr. Al Janaby certainly had no right to accost these women on a public walkway, but this was a matter for local law enforcement, not the FCHR.
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 finding that Townsend Seafood did not commit an act of public accommodation discrimination against Petitioner, Shirley P. Williams, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Century Realty Funds, Inc., violated the Florida Fair Housing Act, Chapters 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2006), by failing to install a poolside chairlift as requested by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the formal hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is physically disabled and protected for the purposes of the Florida Fair Housing Act. Respondent is the owner of Plantation Landings Mobile Home Park ("Plantation Landings") in Haines City, Florida. Plantation Landings is a 55-year-old and older community. It owns and leases the lots to the owner-tenants of Plantation Landings. Because Respondent owns the Plantation Landings real estate and the subject swimming pool, it has the sole discretion to approve the requested improvements. The swimming pool area is handicap accessible. It is a public swimming pool and regulated by the State of Florida, Department of Health. It was built approximately 30 years ago; there are no known existing construction plans for the pool. The swimming pool is surrounded by a wheelchair-accessible path, and the pool itself has two separate sets of handrails; one for the deep end and one for the shallow end. There are steps leading into the shallow end of the pool and a ladder leading into the deep end. The swimming pool does not have a poolside chairlift. The swimming pool area is not supervised by life guards. Plantation Landings does not provide any supportive services to its residents, such as counseling, medical, therapeutic, or social services. The owner-tenants of Plantation Landings are members of the Plantation Landings Mobile Home Park Homeowners' Association ("Homeowners' Association"), which is a voluntary homeowners' association. Petitioner and his wife are members of the Homeowners' Association. Petitioner and his wife purchased a home in Plantation Landings and leased a lot from Respondent on February 8, 2001, pursuant to a Lease Agreement of the same date. Petitioner is a paraplegic and is able to move about by wheelchair. He is able to access the swimming pool common area in his wheelchair. However, he is not able to get in and out of the pool by himself. He has attempted to get into the swimming pool with the assistance of other residents. He would like to be able to have access into the swimming pool without relying upon the assistance of other residents so that he can exercise. In April 2003, Petitioner discussed the feasibility of installing a poolside chairlift at the swimming pool with Respondent's agent. Petitioner offered to pay for the poolside chairlift and installation at his own expense. On April 1, 2003, Petitioner submitted a written request to Respondent requesting that Respondent install a poolside chairlift. Petitioner delivered his April 1, 2003, written request, literature, and video regarding the poolside chairlift to Respondent's agent. The request did not include any specifications or engineered drawings, nor did it state the proposed location for the poolside chairlift. The poolside chairlift initially proposed by Petitioner was the Model IGMT, which was an in-ground manually-operated lift with a 360-degree seat rotation. In its consideration of Petitioner's request, Respondent determined that the design and construction of the pool and the surrounding common areas were in compliance with all state and federal statutes and regulations and that the pool area and common areas to the pool were accessible by wheelchair. Respondent determined that it was not required to install a poolside chairlift for access into the pool. Respondent also learned that the IGMT model was not Americans With Disabilities Act compliant. It was Respondent's conclusion that the poolside chairlift was cost-prohibitive and a dangerous hazard. When Petitioner returned to Plantation Landings in November 2003, he was advised of Respondent's decision not to provide the requested poolside chairlift. In March 2004, Petitioner requested the assistance of James Childs, president of the Homeowners' Association, for the purpose of making a second request to Respondent for the installation of a poolside chairlift. On March 7, 2004, Mr. Childs, on Petitioner's behalf, wrote Respondent requesting a poolside chairlift. On May 3, 2004, Respondent wrote Mr. Childs denying the request. Over the several years Petitioner has resided in Plantation Landings, he has requested modifications to accommodate wheelchair accessibility. These requests included modifications to the ramp at the front of the clubhouse, modifications adding an additional wheelchair ramp to the back of the clubhouse for access into the clubhouse, and modifications to the handicap parking spaces in front of the clubhouse. All of Petitioner's requests for modifications were honored. In May 2006, Petitioner, again with the assistance of Mr. Childs, made a third request to install a poolside chairlift. This third request was identical to his two prior requests made in 2003 and 2004. This request was denied by letter on April 27, 2006. On December 23, 2006, Petitioner filed a Complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development alleging that Respondent had discriminated against him on the basis of his disability by refusing to allow him to install a poolside chairlift at his own expense.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief for failure to establish an unlawful discriminatory act by Respondent, or, alternatively, that the claim is time-barred and that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 15th day of February, 2008.
