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 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.
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 committed a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner on the basis of a handicap.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner formerly resided in Montrose Apartments at 563 West Montrose Street, Apartment 18, Clermont, Florida. Petitioner alleges that he is a handicapped/disabled person by virtue of a mental disability, who was "illegally" evicted from Montrose Apartments because of his handicap/disability. At all times relevant to this proceeding Francisco Guzman, Jr., owned and managed Montrose Apartments. Mr. Guzman was unaware of Petitioner's alleged handicap/disability. At no time during Petitioner's tenancy at Montrose Apartments did Petitioner notify management of the apartment complex that he had a handicap/disability. Furthermore, Petitioner never provided management with documentation verifying that he had a handicap/disability. Petitioner alleged that in early 2009, he requested that Respondent make plumbing repairs in his apartment unit and that Respondent refused to comply with those requests. He further alleged that Respondent did not take his maintenance requests seriously and treated other tenants at Montrose Apartments more favorably than he was treated. Petitioner admitted that he did not pay rent for his Montrose Apartment unit in March and April 2009. According to Petitioner, he withheld the rent because Respondent failed to make the requested plumbing repairs. In correspondence from him to a "Ms. Smith," Mr. Guzman indicated that on "Sunday [March] 22, 2009," he had posted a three-day notice on Petitioner's apartment, because he had not paid his March 2009 rent. Also, Mr. Guzman acknowledged that he had not been able to repair Petitioner's bathroom sink because he had been unable to gain access to Petitioner's apartment. Finally, Mr. Guzman indicated that he believed Petitioner was "avoiding [him] since he is unable to pay the rent." Petitioner did not pay rent for his Montrose Apartment unit in March and April 2009, even after Respondent notified him several times that the rent was past due and should be paid. Respondent began eviction proceedings against Petitioner in or about late April or early May 2009, by filing a Complaint for Eviction ("Eviction Complaint") with the County Court of Lake County, Florida. The Eviction Complaint was assigned Case No. 2009-CC001534. Respondent filed the Eviction Complaint against Petitioner after, and because, he did not pay the March and April 2009 rent for his Montrose Apartment unit. On May 5, 2009, a Final Judgment for Possession and Writ of Possession were entered against Petitioner. The Writ of Possession was served on Petitioner and enforced. On or about May 8, 2009, the apartment unit previously rented to Petitioner was turned over to Mr. Guzman. Petitioner alleges and asserts that: (1) he is disabled/handicapped due to a mental disability; (2) he was evicted because of his handicap/disability; and (3) Respondent knew Petitioner was handicapped/disabled. Nevertheless, Petitioner presented no competent evidence to support his claim.
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 Luis Bermudez' Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 26th day of February, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Hernando County Housing Authority (Respondent) unlawfully engaged in a discriminatory housing practice against Peggy Troiano (Petitioner) on the basis of her disability by refusing to provide Section 8 funding for a housing unit being occupied by Petitioner and the housing unit's owner, Petitioner’s daughter, Julia Williams.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Petitioner was an individual participant in a tenant-based voucher arrangement under the Section 8 Housing Program funded by HUD and administered by Respondent. Petitioner is an individual claiming that she is disabled because of a toxic injury that requires her to live isolated in a non-toxic environment. Respondent does not contest Petitioner’s claim of disability and it is, therefore, found that Petitioner is disabled or handicapped within the meaning of applicable law. Julia Williams is Petitioner’s daughter who, at all relevant times, owned the house located at 15141 Pomp Parkway, Weeki Wachee, Hernando County, Florida (“15141 Pomp Parkway unit”). Ms. Williams is specially trained to deal with toxic injury and is paid through a federally-funded, consumer-directed program to provide assistance to Petitioner. Respondent is a public housing agency that administers the Section 8 Housing Program as part of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which recodified the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. As a recipient of funding from HUD for its Section 8 Program, Respondent is required to comply with HUD Section 8 regulations, as well as all Federal, State, and local fair housing laws and regulations. In order to receive funding from HUD, Respondent is required to sign an annual contributions contract (ACC) wherein it agrees to follow the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). If Respondent does not follow the C.F.R. or HUD’s guidelines, HUD has the right to terminate Respondent’s Section 8 program funding. In addition, HUD could make Respondent repay any funding used for ineligible housing. On March 17, 2014, during the annual reexamination for her Section 8 voucher, Petitioner signed, under the penalty of perjury, a summary report which identified her as the only household member permitted to live in any unit under her Section 8 voucher. Around the time of the annual reexamination, Petitioner was living at a unit on Philatelic Drive with plans to move into and rent a unit at 15141 Pomp Parkway. The Pomp Parkway unit was owned, but not being occupied, by Petitioner’s daughter Julia Williams. In April of 2014, Petitioner asked Respondent for permission to rent the unit from her daughter. Petitioner and her daughter spoke with Respondent’s officials about her request. Generally, a public housing agency, such as Respondent, cannot approve a unit for participation in the Section 8 program if it is owned by a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sister, or brother of any member of the participant’s family. See 24 C.F.R. § 982.306. Respondent, however, ultimately approved Petitioner’s rental of the Pomp Parkway unit under the Section 8 program, even though it was owned by Petitioner’s daughter, pursuant to a limited exception under 24 C.F.R. § 982.306(d), which provides an express exception to the rule if “the [public housing agency] determines that approving the unit would provide reasonable accommodation for a family member who is a person with disabilities.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.306(d). Also, during April of 2014, Petitioner and Ms. Williams were working on constructing a caregiver suite for the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit and had discussions with Respondent’s staff about it. There are documents purportedly created during this time frame summarizing several conversations between Respondent, Petitioner, and Ms. Williams. The documents state that Respondent’s officials had a conversation with Petitioner and her daughter wherein they discussed the requirements for a live- in aide and that Petitioner and Ms. Williams were warned that Ms. Williams could never live in the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit. Respondent also contends that Petitioner and Ms. Williams were warned that, even if Ms. Williams was approved as a live-in aide, Ms. Williams could not live in the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit. On the other hand, Petitioner contends that the alleged conversations warning her that her daughter could not reside in the home did not occur during this time frame, and that she and her daughter continued to renovate the house to specifications suitable to accommodate Petitioner's disability with the expectation that her daughter would ultimately be able to reside in the home after renovations were complete. Upon consideration of the credibility of the witnesses and timing of the purported documents, the undersigned finds that the testimony and documents regarding these alleged April conversations are unreliable and do not support a finding that the conversations and warnings actually occurred during the April time frame. The evidence is also insufficient to support Petitioner's contention that Respondent was somehow responsible for Petitioner's expectation that her daughter would be able to both act as Petitioner's caregiver and live in the home while Petitioner was receiving rent vouchers under the Section 8 program. Petitioner was the only person that Respondent approved to live in the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit under her Section 8 voucher. In May of 2014, Petitioner’s daughter entered into a one-year residential lease with Petitioner and a Housing Assistance Payment Contract (HAP Contract) with Respondent. According to the HAP Contract, Petitioner was the only person able to reside in the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit without the express, written consent of Respondent. At the time the HAP Contract was signed, Petitioner advised Respondent that she would be the only person living in the unit. Ms. Williams, as the landlord, signed a check cashing agreement with Respondent wherein she agreed Petitioner would be the only person occupying the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit. Also, Petitioner’s income verification summary report provides that Petitioner is the only person allowed to live in a unit covered by her Section 8 voucher. In early May of 2014, Ms. Williams moved into the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit without notice to Respondent. Petitioner has never received written approval from Respondent to have Ms. Williams live and occupy the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit under the Section 8 voucher program. By letter dated June 17, 2014, Petitioner submitted an HCHA Live-in Aide Request Verification Form, along with letters from her doctor. Petitioner also requested that her daughter Julia Williams serve as her live-in aide. Approval for a live-in aide is a different process than the approval process to have someone added to the household. While Petitioner's request for a live-in aide stated that Petitioner was living at 15141 Pomp Parkway, it did not mention that Petitioner's daughter was the owner of the dwelling, nor did it include a specific request that Ms. Williams be allowed to move into and occupy the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit that she owned. Upon receipt of the written request for a live-in aide by Petitioner, Respondent began its investigation to determine whether Petitioner met the qualifications for a live-in aide and whether Ms. Williams met the qualifications to serve as a live- in aide. Respondent has implemented 24 C.F.R. § 5.403 into its written policy regarding live-in aides, which provides: LIVE-IN ATTENDANTS A family may include a live-in aide provided that such live-in aide: Is determined by the [public housing agency] to be essential to the care and well-being of an elderly person, a nearly-elderly person, or a person with disabilities, Is not obligated for the support of the person(s), and Would not be living in the unit except to provide care for the person(s). Under the C.F.R., a public housing agency is required to approve a live-in aide, if needed, as a reasonable accommodation for an elderly or disabled person. 24 C.F.R. § 982.316 (“The PHA must approve a live-in-aide if needed as a reasonable accommodation” to a family with an elderly or disabled person.). By letter dated June 27, 2014, Respondent notified Petitioner of the approval of her request for her daughter to serve as her live-in aide. Although Respondent was aware that a home occupied by an owner was not eligible for a Section 8 voucher at the time it gave its permission for Petitioner's daughter to serve as Petitioner's live-in aide, the letter did not speak to that issue. Rather, the June 27, 2014, letter, signed by Donald Singer, stated: Pursuant to your letter dated June 17, 2014 requesting a reasonable accommodation for a live in aide. Your letter also ask [sic] that the live in aide be your daughter, Julia Williams based upon her qualifications as presented. After reviewing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) regulations for Live-in Aides and the Housing Authority's Section 8 Program Administrative Plan for Live in Aides our office has determined that your daughter, Julia Williams meets the program qualification(s) to act as your Live in Aide. Therefore our office is approving Julia E. Williams as your Live in Aide effective immediately. Should you have any questions regarding this action/letter please contact our office at 352-754-4160. By email on August 11, 2014, Petitioner notified Mr. Singer that she and her live-in aide, Julia Williams, intended to live at the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit. On August 11, 2014, Petitioner’s daughter Julia Williams was still the owner of the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit. Under 24 C.F.R. § 892.352, a unit being occupied by its owner is deemed “ineligible” and a public housing agency is prohibited from providing funding for such unit. The C.F.R. provides a limited exception for shared housing that allows an owner to occupy a unit funded by Section 8. Under that limited exception, however, the Section 8 participant cannot be a blood relative of the resident owner. 24 C.F.R. § 982.615(b)(3). Based upon the prohibition under the C.F.R. which forbids a public housing agency from funding a unit occupied by an owner who is a blood relative of the Section 8 participant, by letters dated August 22, 2014, Respondent notified Petitioner and Ms. Williams that the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit was “ineligible housing” that could not be funded. The letters also informed Petitioner that Julia Williams' approval as a live-in aide did not supersede HUD regulations and that, because Julia Williams was occupying the unit, Respondent was terminating the HAP contract effective September 30, 2014. The only reason Respondent terminated the funding for the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit was because the C.F.R. does not allow Respondent to continue funding a unit occupied by its owner. Prior to the August 22nd letters, Respondent was advised by HUD that Respondent did not have any discretion in funding “ineligible housing.” HUD approved the draft of the August 22nd letters. The evidence does not support a finding that either Respondent or HUD waived or should otherwise be prevented from applying the limitations and requirements of the law that a Section 8 participant cannot be a blood relative of the resident owner. Respondent would have been willing to continue Petitioner’s housing assistance as long as Petitioner met program requirements and the housing was deemed eligible housing under the C.F.R. through the issuance of a new three-bedroom voucher for a different unit, or by having Petitioner live in the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit without Ms. Williams both owning and occupying the unit. By letter dated August 27, 2014, Respondent provided Petitioner with a new Section 8 voucher and voucher packet information so that Petitioner could start searching for a new rental unit where Ms. Williams could continue to serve as Petitioner’s live-in aide under Petitioner’s Section 8 voucher. The new voucher was required to be returned to Respondent by September 30, 2014. There was no testimony that Petitioner returned the new Section 8 voucher to Respondent by September 30, 2014, or that Ms. Williams moved out of 15141 Pomp Parkway by that date. On September 4, 2014, before the funding was terminated for the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit, Petitioner filed a complaint for discrimination. Petitioner emailed a signed three-bedroom voucher on October 30, 2014, a month after funding under the new voucher expired, for the rental of the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit that had already been deemed ineligible housing as defined by 24 C.F.R. § 982.316. That voucher is not valid and the facts fail to support a finding that Respondent’s refusal to allow Petitioner to participate in the Section 8 voucher program while occupying a unit owned and occupied by her daughter was because of Petitioner’s disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED the 22nd day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 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 22nd day of May, 2015.
