The Issue Whether Petitioner has been subjected to unlawful discrimination in a public accommodation by Respondent, as alleged in the Amended Public Accommodation Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on July 30, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rungvichit Yongmahapakorn, was hired by Respondent as an internal auditor in December 1998, then was promoted to vice president of accounting and finance in April 1999. While she worked for Respondent, Petitioner was provided room and board at the hotel. Her employment was terminated by Respondent on May 30, 2003. The circumstances of her termination are not at issue in this proceeding. Respondent, Amtel Group of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Ramada at Amtel Marina, owns and operates a 24-story full service hotel in downtown Fort Myers, Florida, overlooking the Caloosahatchee River. The hotel offers over 400 rooms and suites to guests. Petitioner testified that in May 2003, she visited her native Thailand. She returned to Fort Myers on June 3, 2003, and proceeded to Respondent's hotel, where she learned of her termination. Petitioner testified that the notice of her termination was posted on the door of Room 411, a room dedicated to staff of the hotel in which she had lived for several months. The notice also informed her that she must vacate the hotel's premises immediately. Having nowhere else to go and wishing to have some time to assess her options, Petitioner requested that she be allowed to stay as a paying guest of the hotel. She also complained of mildew in Room 411 and asked for a different room. Hotel staff showed her Room 1621, a non-smoking king guest suite facing the water. The standard rate for this suite was $129.00 per night. During the month of June, the rate actually charged for this room ranged from $89.00 to $119.00, depending on demand. Petitioner rejected Room 1621 claiming that the furniture was dirty and scratched, and the carpet needed cleaning. Ginger Eodice, director of Housekeeping for the hotel, personally cleaned the room. Petitioner did not approve of Ms. Eodice's work. Hotel staff then showed Petitioner Room 1613, another non-smoking king guest suite facing the water. Petitioner claimed that the window screens in this room were dirty and demanded that hotel staff show her another room. Petitioner was told that she could have her choice of Rooms 411, 1621, and 1613. Ms. Eodice testified that all three of the rooms were up to Ramada standards of cleanliness and in good repair. Rooms 1621 and 1613 were provided without incident or complaint to hotel guests before and after Petitioner's stay in the hotel. Petitioner refused to select a room. She was upset and became increasingly loud in the hotel lobby. Hotel staff attempted to mollify her in order not to create a scene in front of other guests, but Petitioner would not calm down. Den Chinsomboon, who was then a manager at the hotel, told Petitioner that she had to choose a room or be escorted from the hotel property. Petitioner continued her tirade, and Mr. Chinsomboon ordered a front desk employee to call the Fort Myers Police Department. The police arrived and told Petitioner that she had to select a room or leave the premises. Petitioner then calmed down and chose to stay in Room 1613. Petitioner paid in advance for ten days' stay in the room totaling $646.10. Upon her checkout on June 12, 2003, Petitioner received a full refund of $646.10 from the hotel. No witness offered any first-hand explanation for the low rate charged or the reason for the full refund. Kevin Matney, the hotel manager who made these decisions, no longer works for Respondent and did not testify at the final hearing. Petitioner testified that, while she was a guest in Room 1613, the hotel's engineering staff used pass keys to enter the room without her permission. Under cross-examination, Petitioner conceded that the engineering staff came to the room at her request to change a light bulb, but she still maintained that they entered without knocking. Several staff members testified that Ramada's firm policy was for staff to knock twice on a guest's door before using the pass key to enter. Petitioner offered no evidence that hotel staff discriminated against her because she was Asian, Thai, or because she was female. The evidence established that the hotel's owners are Thai, as were several other employees at the time. She contended that Mr. Chinsomboon's actions were motivated by the "normal" Thai male's tendency to discriminate against Thai females, but offered no firm evidence to support this bare assertion. Petitioner attempted to show that two white male employees were treated differently after their employment was terminated. At most, Petitioner was able to show that one of these terminated employees was later allowed to hire out the hotel's banquet facilities for a wedding reception. This can hardly be termed disparate treatment, given that Petitioner was allowed to stay at the hotel without charge for ten days after she was terminated. Petitioner alleged discriminatory treatment in the fact that the hotel summoned the police to evict her because she complained about the condition of the rooms she was offered. The weight of the evidence established that Respondent's employees called the police because Petitioner was causing a disturbance and was refusing to select a room. Once Petitioner selected a room, she stayed at the hotel for nine nights without further incident and was not charged for her stay. The evidence established that Petitioner had lived at the hotel since 1998 without complaining about the cleanliness or general repair of her rooms. The evidence established that Petitioner was irate over her termination and that her anger caused her to make unreasonable demands regarding the conditions of the rooms. Hotel staff attempted to satisfy Petitioner's demands, if only to prevent a loud confrontation in the hotel's lobby. There was no credible evidence that any employee of the hotel behaved in a manner that could be termed discriminatory against Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2005, 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 11th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her religion or national origin in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Tal Simhoni ("Simhoni"), a Jewish woman who identifies the State of Israel as her place of national origin, at all times relevant to this action owned Unit No. 212 in Mimo on the Beach I Condominium (the "Condominium"), which is located in Miami Beach, Florida. She purchased this unit in 2009 and a second apartment (Unit No. 203) in 2010. Simhoni has resided at the Condominium on occasion but her primary residence, at least as of the final hearing, was in New York City. The Condominium is a relatively small community consisting of two buildings comprising 28 units. Respondent Mimo on the Beach I Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association"), a Florida nonprofit corporation, is the entity responsible for operating and managing the Condominium and, specifically, the common elements of the Condominium property. Governing the Association is a Board of Directors (the "Board"), a representative body whose three members, called "directors," are elected by the unit owners. Simhoni served on the Board for nearly seven years. From July 2010 until April 2011, she held the office of vice- president, and from April 2011 until June 1, 2017, Simhoni was the president of the Board. Simhoni's term as president was cut short when, in May 2017, she and the other two directors then serving with her on the Board were recalled by a majority vote of the Condominium's owners. The Association, while still under the control of the putatively recalled directors, rejected the vote and petitioned the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes ("DBPR"), for arbitration of the dispute. By Summary Final Order dated June 1, 2017, DBPR upheld the recall vote and ordered that Simhoni, Marisel Santana, and Carmen Duarte be removed from office, effective immediately. The run-up to the recall vote entailed a campaign of sorts to unseat Simhoni, which, as might be expected, caused friction between neighbors. Without getting into details that aren't important here, it is fair to say that, generally speaking, the bloc opposed to Simhoni believed that she had poorly managed the Condominium, especially in connection with the use of Association funds. Some of Simhoni's critics were not shy about voicing their opinions in this regard, which—— understandably——led to hard feelings. Simhoni vehemently disputes the charges of her critics and, clearly, has not gotten over her recall election defeat, which she blames on false, unfair, and anti-Semitic accusations against her. This is a case of alleged housing discrimination brought under Florida's Fair Housing Act (the "Act"). Specifically, Simhoni is traveling under section 760.23(2), Florida Statutes, which makes it "unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion." (Emphasis added). The applicable law will be discussed in greater detail below. The purpose of this brief, prefatory mention of the Act is to provide context for the findings of fact that follow. The principal goal of section 760.23(2) is to prohibit the denial of access to housing based on discriminatory animus. Simhoni, however, was not denied access to housing. She is, in fact, a homeowner. Contrary to what some might intuit, the Act is not an all-purpose anti-discrimination law or civility code; it does not purport to police personal disputes, quarrels, and feuds between neighbors, even ugly ones tinged with, e.g., racial or religious hostility. To the extent the Act authorizes charges based on alleged post-acquisition discrimination, such charges must involve the complete denial of services or facilities that are available in common to all owners as a term or condition of ownership——the right to use common areas, for example, pursuant to a declaration of condominium. Moreover, the denial of access to common services or facilities logically must result from the actions of a person or persons, or an entity, that exercises de facto or de jure control over access to the services or facilities in question. This is important because, while Simhoni believes that she was subjected to anti-Semitic slurs during her tenure as Board president, the fact is that her unfriendly neighbors——none of whom then held an office on the Board——were in no position to (and in fact did not) deny Simhoni access to common services and facilities under the Association's control, even if their opposition to her presidency were motivated by discriminatory animus (which wasn't proved). As president of the Board, Simhoni wound up on the receiving end of some uncivil and insensitive comments, and a few of her neighbors seem strongly to dislike her. Simhoni was hurt by this. That impolite, even mean, comments are not actionable as unlawful housing discrimination under section 760.23(2) is no stamp of approval; it merely reflects the relatively limited scope of the Act. Simhoni has organized her allegations of discrimination under six categories. Most of these allegations do not implicate or involve the denial of common services or facilities, and thus would not be sufficient to establish liability under the Act, even if true. For that reason, it is not necessary to make findings of fact to the granular level of detail at which the charges were made. The Mastercard Dispute. As Board president, Simhoni obtained a credit card for the Association, which she used for paying common expenses and other Association obligations such as repair costs. In applying for the card, Simhoni signed an agreement with the issuer to personally guarantee payment of the Association's account. It is unclear whether Simhoni's actions in procuring this credit card were undertaken in accordance with the Condominium's By-Laws, but there is no evidence suggesting that Simhoni was forced, encouraged, or even asked to co-sign the Association's credit agreement; she seems, rather, to have volunteered. Simhoni claims that she used personal funds to pay down the credit card balance, essentially lending money to the Association. She alleges that the Association has failed to reimburse her for these expenditures, and she attributes this nonpayment to anti-Semitism. There appears to be some dispute regarding how much money, if any, the Association actually owes Simhoni for common expenses. The merits of her claim for repayment are not relevant in this proceeding, however, because there is insufficient persuasive evidence in the record to support a finding that the Association has withheld payment based on Simhoni's religion or national origin. Equally, if not more important, is the fact that Simhoni's alleged right to reimbursement is not a housing "service" or "facility" available in common to the Condominium's owners and residents. Nonpayment of the alleged debt might constitute a breach of contract or support other causes of action at law or in equity, but these would belong to Simhoni as a creditor of the Association, not as an owner of the Condominium. In short, the Association's alleged nonpayment of the alleged debt might give Simhoni good legal grounds to sue the Association for, e.g., breach of contract or money had and received——but not for housing discrimination. The Estoppel Certificate. On September 20, 2017, when she was under contract to sell Unit No. 212, Simhoni submitted a written request to the Association for an estoppel certificate, pursuant to section 718.116(8), Florida Statutes. By statute, the Association was obligated to issue the certificate within ten business days——by October 4, 2017, in this instance. Id. The failure to timely issue an estoppel letter results in forfeiture of the right to charge a fee for preparing and delivering the certificate. § 718.116(8)(d), Fla. Stat. The Association missed the deadline, issuing the certificate one-week late, on October 11, 2017; it paid the prescribed statutory penalty for this tardiness, refunding the preparation fee to Simhoni as required. Simhoni attributes the delay to anti-Semitism. It is debatable whether the issuance of an estoppel letter is the kind of housing "service" whose deprivation, if based on religion, national origin, or another protected criterion, would support a claim for unlawful discrimination under the Act. The undersigned will assume for argument's sake that it is such a service. Simhoni's claim nonetheless fails because (i) the very statute that imposes the deadline recognizes that it will not always be met and provides a penalty for noncompliance, which the Association paid; (ii) a brief delay in the issuance of an estoppel letter is not tantamount to the complete deprivation thereof; and (iii) there is, at any rate, insufficient persuasive evidence that the minimal delay in issuing Simhoni a certificate was the result of discriminatory animus. Pest Control. Pest control is not a service that the Association is required to provide but, rather, one that may be provided at the discretion of the Board. During Simhoni's tenure as Board president, apparently at her urging, the Association arranged for a pest control service to treat all of the units for roaches, as a common expense, and the apartments were sprayed on a regular basis. If the exterminator were unable to enter a unit because, e.g., the resident was not at home when he arrived, a locksmith would be summoned to open the door, and the owner would be billed individually for this extra service. After Simhoni and her fellow directors were recalled, the new Board decided, as a cost-control measure, to discontinue the pest control service, allowing the existing contract to expire without renewal. Owners were notified that, during the phaseout, the practice of calling a locksmith would cease. If no one were home when the pest control operator showed up, the unit would not be sprayed, unless the owner had left a key with the Association or made arrangements for someone else to open his door for the exterminator. By this time, Simhoni's principal residence, as mentioned, was in New York. Although she knew that the locksmith option was no longer available, Simhoni failed to take steps to ensure that the pest control operator would have access to her apartment when she wasn't there. Consequently, Simhoni's unit was not sprayed on some (or perhaps any) occasions during the phaseout. Simhoni blames anti-Semitism for the missed pest control visits, but the greater weight of the evidence fails to support this charge. Simhoni was treated the same as everyone else in connection with the pest control service. Moreover, Simhoni was not completely deprived of access to pest control, which would have been provided to her if she had simply made arrangements to permit access to her unit. Short-term Rentals. Article XVII of the Condominium's Declaration of Condominium ("Declaration"), titled Occupancy and Use Restrictions, specifically regulates leases. Section 17.8 of the Declaration provides, among other things, that the Association must approve all leases of units in the Condominium, which leases may not be for a term of less than one year. In other words, the Declaration prohibits short-term, or vacation, rentals, which are typically for periods of days or weeks. Short-term rentals can be lucrative for owners, especially in places such as Miami Beach that attract tourists who might be interested in alternatives to traditional hotel lodgings. On the flip side, however, short-term rental activity is not necessarily welcomed by neighboring residents, who tend to regard transients as being insufficiently invested in preserving the peace, quiet, and tidy appearance of the neighborhood. At the Condominium, the question of whether or not to permit short-term rentals has divided the owners into competing camps. Simhoni is in favor of allowing short-term rentals. Accordingly, while she was Board president, the Association did not enforce the Declaration's prohibition of this activity. (It is possible, but not clear, that the Association was turning a blind eye to short-term rentals even before Simhoni became a director.) This laissez-faire approach did not sit well with everyone; indeed, dissatisfaction with short-term rentals provided at least some of the fuel for the ultimately successful recall effort that cost Simhoni her seat on the Board. After Simhoni and the rest of her Board were removed, the new directors announced their intent to enforce the Declaration's ban on short-term rentals. Simhoni alleges that the crackdown on short-term rentals was an act of religion-based housing discrimination. Her reasoning in this regard is difficult to follow, but the gist of it seems to be that the Association is selectively enforcing the ban so that only Simhoni and other Jewish owners are being forced to stop engaging in short-term rental activity; that the prohibition is having a disparate impact on Jewish owners; or that some owners are harassing Simhoni by making complaints about her to the City of Miami Beach in hopes that the City will impose fines against her for violating municipal restrictions on short-term rentals. The undersigned recognizes that a neutral policy such as the prohibition of short-term rentals conceivably could be enforced in a discriminatory manner, thus giving rise to a meritorious charge under the Act. Here, however, the evidence simply does not support Simhoni's contentions. There is insufficient evidence of disparate impact, disparate treatment, selective enforcement, harassment, or discriminatory animus in connection with the Association's restoration of the short-term rental ban. To the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Association is trying to stop short-term rentals at the Condominium for a perfectly legitimate reason, namely that a majority of the owners want section 17.8 of the Declaration to be given full force and effect. The Feud with Flores. Simhoni identifies Mr. and Ms. Flores as the worst of her antagonists among her neighbors. As advocates of the recall, these two were fierce critics of Simhoni. The Floreses reported Simhoni to the City of Miami Beach for engaging in short-term rentals without the required business tax receipt, in violation of the municipal code. At a code enforcement hearing, Mr. Flores gave Simhoni the finger. None of this, however, amounts to housing discrimination because the Floreses' actions did not completely deprive Simhoni of common facilities or services, even if such actions were motivated by anti-Semitism, which the greater weight of the evidence fails to establish. Indeed, there is no persuasive evidence that the Floreses ever had such control over the Condominium's facilities or services that they could have denied Simhoni access to them. Simhoni argues in her proposed recommended order, apparently for the first time, that the Floreses' conduct created a "hostile housing environment." Putting aside the legal problems with this belatedly raised theory, the Floreses' conduct was not sufficiently severe and pervasive, as a matter of fact, to support a "hostile environment" claim. Nor is there sufficient persuasive evidence in the record to support a finding that the Floreses acted in concert with the Board to harass Simhoni, or that the Board acquiesced to the Floreses' conduct. Roof Repairs. Simhoni alleges that the Association failed to repair the area of the roof over her unit, which she claims was damaged in Hurricane Irma, and that the Association has refused to make certain repairs inside her unit, which she asserts sustained interior water damage as a result of roof leaks. Simhoni asserts that, using Association funds, the Association not only repaired other portions of the roof, but also fixed interior damages similar to hers, for the benefit of non-Jewish owners. The greater weight of the persuasive evidence shows, however, that the roof over Simhoni's unit is not damaged, and that the Association never instructed the roofing contractor not to make needed repairs. Simhoni, in short, was not denied the service of roof repairs. As for the alleged damage to Simhoni's unit, section 7.1 of the Declaration provides that repairs to the interior of a unit are to be performed by the owner at the owner's sole cost and expense. The evidence fails to establish that the interior damage of which Simhoni complains falls outside of her duty to repair. Because this is a housing discrimination case, and not a legal or administrative proceeding to enforce the terms of the Declaration, it is neither necessary, nor would it be appropriate, for the undersigned to adjudicate fully the question of whether the Association is obligated to repair Simhoni's unit as a common expense. Here, it is sufficient to find (and it is found) that section 7.1 of the Declaration affords the Association a legitimate, nonpretextual, nondiscriminatory reason to refuse, as it has, to perform the interior repairs that Simhoni has demanded.
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 finding the Association not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Simhoni no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 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, 2019.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for change of ownership should be granted or denied on the basis of the allegations set forth in the Second Amended Notice of Intent to Deny (“Second Amended NOID”).
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on exhibits admitted into evidence, testimony offered by witnesses, and admitted facts set forth in the prehearing stipulation. Parties The Agency is the regulatory authority responsible for licensure of assisted living facilities (“ALFs”) and enforcement of applicable state statutes and rules governing assisted living facilities pursuant to chapters 408, part II, and 429, part I, Florida Statutes, and chapters 58A-5 and 59A-35, Florida Administrative Code. In carrying out its responsibilities, AHCA conducts inspections (commonly referred to as surveys) of licensed ALFs to determine compliance with the regulatory requirements. The Agency’s evaluation, or survey, of an ALF may include review of resident records, direct observations of the residents, and interviews with facility staff persons. Surveys may be performed to investigate complaints or to determine compliance as part of a change of ownership process. While the purpose of the survey may vary, any noncompliance found is documented in a standard Agency form entitled “Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction (“Statement of Deficiencies”).2/ The form is prepared by the surveyor(s) upon completing the survey. Deficiencies are noted on the form and classified by a numeric or alphanumeric identifier commonly called a “Tag.” The Tag identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors use to support the alleged deficiency or violation. Deficiencies must be categorized as Class I, Class II, Class III, Class IV, or unclassified deficiencies. § 408.813(2), Fla. Stat. In general, the class correlates to the nature and severity of the deficiency. Dixie Lodge submitted an application seeking to change ownership of its facility in July 2015 and was issued a provisional license to operate Dixie Lodge as an ALF. At all times material hereto, Dixie Lodge was an ALF under the licensing authority of AHCA. Dixie Lodge has been licensed under previous owners for approximately 30 years. To date, Dixie Lodge operates a 77-bed ALF with limited mental health specialty services. AHCA conducted surveys of Dixie Lodge as it related to Dixie Lodge’s CHOW application, commonly referred to as a CHOW survey. The Agency conducted two surveys of Dixie Lodge’s assisted living facility. The Agency conducted a CHOW survey on September 9, 2015. On November 6, 2015, the Agency conducted a follow-up survey to determine whether Dixie Lodge had corrected cited deficiencies. AHCA’s surveyors documented deficiencies and cited Dixie Lodge for violating statutory and rule requirements in several areas of operation. The deficiencies are incorporated in the Statement of Deficiencies, which were prepared after each survey. When a CHOW survey reveals deficiencies, the Agency can deny the upgrade from a provisional license to a standard license. If a provider has three or more Class II violations, such as alleged in this matter, the Agency may deny the upgrade to a standard license. A Class III violation warrants a follow- up visit to give the licensee or applicant an opportunity to fix the alleged deficiency. The Agency may also consider the severity of the violation. Allegations Regarding Class II Deficiencies The AHCA surveyor, Lesly Linder, who participated in the CHOW survey on September 9, 2015, found several deficiencies. As set forth in the Statement of Deficiencies for September 9, 2015, Dixie Lodge was cited for three Class II deficiencies in the following areas: (Tag A0025) resident care- supervision; (Tag A0032) resident care-elopement standards; and (Tag A0165) risk management and quality assurance. Tag A0032: Resident Care and Supervision Resident care and supervision is addressed in section 429.26(7) as follows: (7) The facility must notify a licensed physician when a resident exhibits signs of dementia or cognitive impairment or has a change of condition in order to rule out the presence of an underlying physiological condition that may be contributing to such dementia or impairment. The notification must occur within 30 days after the acknowledgment of such signs by facility staff. If an underlying condition is determined to exist, the facility shall arrange, with the appropriate health care provider, the necessary care and services to treat the condition. Resident care and supervision is also adressed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 58A-5.1082(1) as follows: An assisted living facility must provide care and services appropriate to the needs of residents accepted for admission to the facility. SUPERVISION. Facilities must offer personal supervision as appropriate for each resident, including the following: Monitoring of the quantity and quality of resident diets in accordance with Rule 58A-5.020, F.A.C. Daily observation by designated staff of the activities of the resident while on the premises, and awareness of the general health, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of the resident. Maintaining a general awareness of the resident’s whereabouts. The resident may travel independently in the community. Contacting the resident’s health care provider and other appropriate party such as the resident’s family, guardian, health care surrogate, or case manager if the resident exhibits a significant change; contacting the resident’s family, guardian, health care surrogate, or case manager if the resident is discharged or moves out. Maintaining a written record, updated as needed, of any significant changes, any illnesses that resulted in medical attention, changes in the method of medication administration, or other changes that resulted in the provision of additional services. During the survey, the surveyor reviewed a sampling of 18 residents’ records, and interviewed several facility employees. The allegations regarding resident care supervision were related to Resident No. 16 and Resident No. 17. During the survey on September 9, 2015, Ms. Linder interviewed Employee A and documented in the Statement of Deficiencies that the employee stated that “Resident No. 16 had wandered from the facility about five months ago and the police returned him to the facility.” Based on Employee A’s statement, it was determined that Resident No. 16 engaged in elopement approximately five months prior to Petitioner assuming ownership of the facility. Ms. Lindner documented the elopement of Resident No. 16 as a deficiency, even though Petitioner was not the owner of the facility at that time. When asked whether AHCA is seeking to hold Petitioner responsible for the purported elopement of Resident No. 16, AHCA’s field office manager, Mr. Dickson, stated, “I don’t believe so.” The evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that Petitioner was not responsible for the facility at the time Resident No. 16 eloped from the facility and, thus, was not responsible for elopement of Resident No. 16. The surveyor also interviewed Employee F on September 9, 2015. During the interview, Employee F told the surveyor that Resident No. 17 had left the facility without notifying staff. Specifically, Dixie Lodge maintained a “Report Book,” which included documentation of incidents during each shift. In the book, the staff documented that on September 3, 2015, they had not seen Resident No. 17 on the property for the entire day. The staff then documented their efforts to locate Resident No. 17. Staff documented that they called the hospital and the local jail to determine the location of Resident No. 17. After these calls, the staff contacted law enforcement and law enforcement returned Resident No. 17 to the facility. Based on the evidence of record, there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Dixie Lodge staff had a general awareness of the whereabouts of Resident No. 17. A review of the Report Book revealed that Resident No. 17 had also eloped from the facility on September 8, 2015, and had not been found at the time of the survey on September 9, 2015, at 3:30 p.m. At that time, the timeline for a one-day adverse incident had not expired. The surveyor interviewed the then administrator for Dixie Lodge and she disclosed that the facility does not have contact information for next of kin or a case manager for Resident No. 17. Even if the administrator had the contact information, Dixie Lodge would not be required to contact them (regarding the elopement), unless the resident was discharged or had moved out. Here, Resident No. 17 had eloped but returned to the facility. Tag A0032: Elopement Standards Elopement is when a resident leaves a facility without following facility policies and procedures and without the knowledge of facility staff. The elopement standards are described in rule 58A- 5.0182(8), which provides as follows: (8) ELOPEMENT STANDARDS Residents Assessed at Risk for Elopement. All residents assessed at risk for elopement or with any history of elopement must be identified so staff can be alerted to their needs for support and supervision. As part of its resident elopement response policies and procedures, the facility must make, at a minimum, a daily effort to determine that at risk residents have identification on their persons that includes their name and the facility’s name, address, and telephone number. Staff attention must be directed towards residents assessed at high risk for elopement, with special attention given to those with Alzheimer’s disease or related disorders assessed at high risk. At a minimum, the facility must have a photo identification of at risk residents on file that is accessible to all facility staff and law enforcement as necessary. The facility’s file must contain the resident’s photo identification within 10 days of admission or within 10 days of being assessed at risk for elopement subsequent to admission. The photo identification may be provided by the facility, the resident, or the resident’s representative. Facility Resident Elopement Response Policies and Procedures. The facility must develop detailed written policies and procedures for responding to a resident elopement. At a minimum, the policies and procedures must provide for: An immediate search of the facility and premises, The identification of staff responsible for implementing each part of the elopement response policies and procedures, including specific duties and responsibilities, The identification of staff responsible for contacting law enforcement, the resident’s family, guardian, health care surrogate, and case manager if the resident is not located pursuant to subparagraph (8)(b)1.; and, The continued care of all residents within the facility in the event of an elopement. AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to follow its elopement policies and procedures for Resident Nos. 16 and 17. The Statement of Deficiencies also alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to ensure that at least two elopement drills per year had been conducted with all staff at the facility. Regarding Resident No. 16, evidence of record demonstrates that Petitioner was not responsible for the facility at the time Resident No. 16 eloped from the facility and, thus, was not responsible for elopement of Resident No. 16. Although the elopement occurred before Petitioner assumed ownership of the facility, Resident No. 16 was designated as being at risk for elopement. As such, the facility was required to have photo identification (ID) on file for the Resident. Investigation by the AHCA surveyor revealed that there was a photo on file but that it was of such poor quality that the photo was not readily recognizable. The surveyor did not provide further description of the photo. Dixie Lodge’s owner, Jeff Yuzefpolsky, testified that because Resident No. 16 had been incarcerated, his picture would be immediately accessible, if needed, from the Department of Corrections’ inmate database, and that Mr. Yuzefpolsky was familiar with accessing such photographs. While there was testimony offered regarding the photo, the photo was not offered into evidence. Based on the evidence in the record, the undersigned finds there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Dixie Lodge failed to maintain a photo ID for Resident No. 16. Regarding Resident No. 17, Dixie Lodge had an elopement policies and procedure manual and the staff followed their policies and procedures as it relates to Resident No. 17. Regarding the elopement drills, Ms. Walker discovered documentation of two elopement drills. While the drills did not include record of the staff who participated, there is not a requirement for such in the elopement standards. Dixie Lodge met the requirement by completing the drills and maintaining documentation of the drills. The undersigned finds that the citation for deficiency Tag A0032, a Class II deficiency, was not supported by the evidence in the record. Tag A0165: Risk Management-Adverse Incident Report AHCA also alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to prepare and file adverse incident reports. Each ALF is required to file adverse incident reports as set forth in section 429.23, which, in pertinent part, provides: Every facility licensed under this part may, as part of its administrative functions, voluntarily establish a risk management and quality assurance program, the purpose of which is to assess resident care practices, facility incident reports, deficiencies cited by the agency, adverse incident reports, and resident grievances and develop plans of action to correct and respond quickly to identify quality differences. Every facility licensed under this part is required to maintain adverse incident reports. For purposes of this section, the term, “adverse incident” means: An event over which facility personnel could exercise control rather than as a result of the resident’s condition and results in: Death; Brain or spinal damage; Permanent disfigurement; Fracture or dislocation of bones or joints; Any condition that required medical attention to which the resident has not given his or her consent, including failure to honor advanced directives; Any condition that requires the transfer of the resident from the facility to a unit providing more acute care due to the incident rather than the resident’s condition before the incident; or An event that is reported to law enforcement or its personnel for investigation; or Resident elopement, if the elopement places the resident at risk of harm or injury. Licensed facilities shall provide within 1 business day after the occurrence of an adverse incident, by electronic mail, facsimile, or United States mail, a preliminary report to the agency on all adverse incidents specified under this section. The report must include information regarding the identity of the affected resident, the type of adverse incident, and the status of the facility’s investigation of the incident. Licensed facilities shall provide within 15 days, by electronic mail, facsimile, or United States mail, a full report to the agency on all adverse incidents specified in this section. The report must include the results of the facility’s investigation into the adverse incident. Rule 58A-5.0241 identifies the requirements for filing adverse incident reports as follows: INITIAL ADVERSE INCIDENT REPORT. The preliminary adverse incident report required by Section 429.23(3), F.S., must be submitted within 1 business day after the incident pursuant to Rule 59A-35.110, F.A.C., which requires online reporting. FULL ADVERSE INCIDENT REPORT. For each adverse incident reported in subsection (1) above, the facility must submit a full report within 15 days of the incident. The full report must be submitted pursuant to Rule 59A-35.110, F.A.C., which requires online reporting. AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge was required to file an adverse incident report for elopement incidents involving Resident Nos. 16 and 17 and an injury related to Resident No. 3. During the survey, the surveyor observed Resident No. 3 with a one-inch laceration above his left eye that was covered in dried blood. On September 9, 2015, at 12:14 p.m., the surveyor conducted an interview of Employee A. The surveyor asked the assistant administrator about the laceration on Resident No. 3’s eye. The assistant administrator responded that she learned of the injury at 10:30 a.m. AHCA took issue with the lack of an adverse incident report. However, the timeframe for preparing and filing a report had not expired. Thus, AHCA did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence the alleged deficiency for failure to file an adverse incident report regarding Resident No. 3. As referenced above, the adverse incident requirements related to Resident No. 16 should not be imputed to Petitioner, as Petitioner was not the owner of Dixie Lodge at the time of the incident that would trigger the compliance requirement. At the time of the survey, approximately five days after Resident No. 17 eloped, there was no documentation that a one-day adverse incident report had been filed. The elopement required a one-day adverse incident report because Resident No. 17 eloped and the incident involved law enforcement. Thus, a citation for failure to complete an adverse incident report for the September 3, 2015, elopement incident involving Resident No. 17, a Class II violation, is supported by clear and convincing evidence. A review of the Report Book also revealed that Resident No. 17 had eloped from the facility on September 8, 2015, and had not been found at the time of the survey on September 9, 2015, at 3:30 p.m. Although Resident No. 17 had eloped, the timeline for a one-day adverse incident report had not expired. Thus, the Class II citation for failing to file a one-day adverse incident report for the September 8, 2015, elopement incident involving Resident No. 17 incident was not supported by the evidence. Allegations Regarding Class III Deficiencies In addition to the Class II deficiencies, the surveyor cited 18 Class III deficiencies in the following areas: (A0008) admissions-health assessment; (A0026) resident care- social and leisure activities; (A0029) resident care-nursing services; (A0030) resident care-rights and facility procedures; (A0052) medication-assistance with self-administration; (A0054) medication-records; (A0056) medication-labeling and orders; (A0076) do not resuscitate orders; (A0077) staffing standards-administrators; (A0078) staffing standards-staff; (A0081) training-staff in-service; (A0082) training-HIV/AIDS; (A0083) training-first aid and CPR; (A0090) training-do not resuscitate orders; (A0093) food service-dietary standards; (A0160) records-facility; (A0161) records-staff; and (A0167) resident contracts. Section 400.23(8)(c) provides in part: “A citation for a class III deficiency must specify the time within which the deficiency is required to be corrected. If a class III deficiency is corrected within the time specified, a civil penalty may not be imposed.” Section 408.811(4) provides that a deficiency must be corrected within 30 calendar days after the provider is notified of inspection results unless an alternative timeframe is required or approved by the agency. Section 408.811(5) provides: “The agency may require an applicant or licensee to submit a plan of correction for deficiencies. If required, the plan of correction must be filed with the agency within 10 calendar days after notification unless an alternative timeframe is required.” On September 17, 2015, AHCA sent Dixie Lodge a Directed Plan of Correction (“DPOC”). However, the DPOC was not offered at hearing. There was testimony regarding the content of the DPOC, but that testimony alone, without corroborating admissible evidence, is not sufficient to support a finding of fact regarding Petitioner’s failure to comply with the DPOC. The Findings of Fact below are made regarding the Class III deficiencies alleged in subsection 2, paragraph 1, of the Seconded Amended NOID. Tag A0008: Admission-Health Assessment AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to ensure that it obtained and maintained complete health assessments for Dixie Lodge residents. Specifically, the Amended NOID alleged that the files for two residents were missing health assessments. The first resident, Resident No. 16, allegedly had been re-admitted after a seven-month absence from the facility without an updated health assessment. While the readmission and the initial timeframe for updating the health assessment expired before Petitioner took possession of the property, the facility was responsible for updating the records so information is available for the facility to determine the appropriateness of the resident’s continuous stay in the facility. There is clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate that Dixie Lodge violated Tag A008 and that it indirectly or potentially poses a risk to patients. Tag A0026: Resident Care-Social and Leisure Activities AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to ensure that residents were provided a minimum weekly number of hours of leisure and social activities. The logbook reflected there were no activities offered during the month of September 2015. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Dixie Lodge failed to provide a minimum weekly number of hours of leisure and social activities. Dixie Lodge’s failure to provide leisure and social activities constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents. Tag A0029: Resident Care-Nursing Services AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to ensure that it provided nursing services as required for resident care by permitting a certified nursing assistant to change wound dressings instead of a nurse. The certified nursing assistant did not testify, nor did the administrator. Therefore, there was no admissible evidence to support the allegation. Tag A0030: Resident Care-Rights and Facility Procedures AHCA alleged Dixie Lodge failed to ensure residents’ rights were addressed. Specifically, it is alleged that residents had grievances regarding not being paid for gardening labor performed, and Dixie Lodge’s then administrator acknowledged those grievances. In addition, a resident reported a grievance regarding the resident’s roommate. The administrator acknowledged the grievances and admitted the grievances were not documented. As a result, Dixie failed to ensure residents’ rights were implemented. Tag A0052: Medication-Assistance/Self-Administration AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to ensure that it provided assistance with self-administration of medications for residents. Specifically, Dixie Lodge failed to assist a resident with self-administration of Depakene (an anti-seizure medication). The resident self-administered two doses of the medication without assistance. As a result, Dixie Lodge failed to meet the parameters for self-administration. Tag A0054: Medication-Records AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to maintain accurate and up-to-date medication observation records for residents receiving assistance with self-administration of medications by failing to properly document medication administration. The medication administration records were not offered at hearing. However, the surveyor testified about her observations while conducting the survey. Dixie Lodge did not dispute her testimony. Thus, the evidence was clear and convincing that Dixie Lodge failed to maintain accurate and up- to-date medication observation records related to administration of anti-psychotic medications. Tag A0056: Medication-Labeling and Orders AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to ensure that it complied with requirements to take reasonable steps to timely re-fill medication prescriptions for residents. It was further alleged that Dixie Lodge had not scheduled a face-to-face visit for a patient as required to obtain a prescription refill. However, there were no records offered at hearing to support the allegations. The surveyor’s testimony was based on an interview she conducted with a resident and her review of medical records, which was not corroborated by any admissible evidence. There is no clear and convincing admissible evidence in the record to support the violation. Tag A0076: Do Not Resuscitate Orders AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to develop and implement a policy and procedure related to “Do Not Resuscitate Orders (“DNRs).” The AHCA surveyor relied upon statements made during an interview by phone of Dixie Lodge employees. The employees interviewed did not testify at hearing. The testimony presented by the surveyor was based on uncorroborated hearsay, which could not be relied upon for a finding of fact. Tag A0077: Regarding Staffing Standards-Administrators The surveyor noted that the administrator of record failed to provide adequate supervision over the facility by failing to notify the Agency of an adverse incident report for three of the patients sampled (i.e., Resident Nos. 3, 16, and 17). The facts of the incidents are set forth above. Regarding Resident No. 3, the evidence offered at hearing was sufficient to demonstrate that the deficiency found was appropriate. Regarding Resident No. 16, Petitioner was not the owner of the facility at the time of the resident’s elopement and, thus, Petitioner is not responsible for the incident that occurred prior to it assuming ownership of the facility. Regarding Resident No. 17, the evidence offered at hearing was sufficient to demonstrate that the cited deficiency was appropriate. On November 6, 2015, the Agency conducted a follow-up survey wherein the surveyor cited an uncorrected deficiency regarding Tag A0077. No evidence was offered at hearing to refute the allegation that the deficiency was not corrected. Thus, the Class III uncorrected deficiency citation was appropriate. The evidence offered at hearing was sufficient to demonstrate that the cited deficiency was appropriate. Tag A0078: Staffing Standards-Staff AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to ensure within 30 days that it had obtained and maintained in the personnel file of each direct health care provider, verification that the staff member was free from communicable disease. The surveyor testified that she reviewed the records for two staff members and discovered there was no documentation in the personnel file of the staff members to demonstrate compliance with the communicable disease-testing requirement. The evidence presented at hearing supports a violation for the allegations related to Tag A0078, which is an indirect risk to residents. Tag A0081: Training-Staff In-Service AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to ensure that staff members completed required in-service training programs, including training related to HIV and AIDS. An employee’s file contained a roster of staff members who completed a training course in HIV and AIDS. Although the roster was not dated and did not include a certificate of completion, there was evidence to demonstrate that the employee had completed the training. Based on the evidence presented at hearing, there was no clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner failed to provide HIV and AIDS training to staff. Tag A0082: Training-HIV/AIDS AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to ensure that a staff member had completed a required HIV/AIDS course within 30 days of employment. Specifically, the personnel file for Employee B included a training roster which reflected that she received the training. The surveyor noted that there was no date on the roster and no certificate of completion. The evidence of record demonstrates that Employee B completed the training. Regarding maintaining documentation, the roster was not offered into evidence to determine whether the requisite information was included on the roster. In addition, Petitioner had not assumed ownership of the facility during the timeframe that the training was required and, thus, there was not sufficient evidence presented at hearing to demonstrate that Petitioner is responsible for the alleged deficiency. Tag A0083: Training-First Aid and CPR AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to ensure that a staff member who had completed courses in First Aid and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (“CPR”) was in the facility at all times. The allegation was supported by the record. The failure to ensure at least one staff member on each shift is trained in First Aid and CPR presents an indirect or potential risk to patients. Tag A0090: Training-Do Not Resuscitate Orders (DNRs) AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to ensure that staff members timely completed a required training course in DNRs. The surveyor’s review of the personnel files of employees A, B, and C revealed that the files did not include sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the three employees completed required training in DNRs. Employees A and C had certificates indicating that they completed the training, but the certificates did not include the duration of the course. Employee B’s file did not include a certificate indicating she completed the training within 30 days, as required. Based on the evidence offered at the final hearing, there is sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support the citation for Tag 0090. Tag A0093: Food Service-Dietary Standards AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to maintain a three-day supply of food in case of an emergency. Specifically, the surveyor observed that three proteins had expired. The failure to ensure sufficient resident nutrition is an indirect risk to residents. There was clear and convincing evidence to prove the cited deficiency. Tag A0160: Records-Facility AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to maintain facility records for admission and discharge. Specifically, a review of the facility’s admission and discharge log incorrectly reflected that 80 residents resided in the facility. It was discovered that the discharge log had not been updated to reflect that five residents no longer resided in the facility. The evidence supports the citation for a deficiency for failure to properly maintain the discharge log. Tag A0161: Records-Staff AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to maintain personnel records with required documentation. Specifically, the Statement of Deficiencies alleges that the personnel files of four Dixie Lodge employees did not include documentation of required trainings. The surveyor reviewed personnel files for the employees. Employees A, B, and C did not include documentation of first aid or CPR training. Employee D’s file did not include updated Level 2 eligibility records. Failure to maintain proper and complete personnel files for employees does not pose an indirect risk to residents so as to constitute a class III violation. Tag A0167: Resident Contracts AHCA alleged that Dixie Lodge failed to provide 30 days’ notice prior to an increase in resident rates for services. The surveyor reviewed the records of two residents and discovered that the two residents received notice of the rate increase less than 30 days before they were implemented. However, the rate increase occurred prior to Dixie Lodge assuming ownership of the facility. Thus, Petitioner was not responsible for the rate increase notice and therefore, there was not sufficient evidence to support the deficiency. Impact on Residents Petitioner seeks to maintain operation of the facility so as not to prevent a negative impact on residents. Marifrances Gullo, RN-C, MSN, FNP-BC, is the owner of Advanced Practical Nursing Services, a behavioral health and addictions management practice. She was accepted as an expert in the field of psychiatric mental health nursing, and testified about the lack of availability of appropriate placements for Dixie Lodge residents should Dixie Lodge be closed. Nurse Gullo provides mental health services to facilities such as Dixie Lodge. She testified that the dislocation of Dixie Lodge residents would likely lead to extremely detrimental effects on many residents. Edward Kornuszko, PsyD, was accepted as an expert in the provision of psychiatric and mental health services. Dr. Kornuszko has more than five years of experience seeking residential placements for patients similarly situated to those at Dixie Lodge. He testified that the task of placing up to 77 chronically ill Dixie Lodge residents at once would be “nearly impossible.” If placements were found for residents who had been at Dixie Lodge for at least 5 to 10 years, he would expect to see “considerable decompensation” in these residents. Ultimate Findings of Fact AHCA demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the cited deficiencies were appropriate for Tag A0165, a Class II deficiency. There was also clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate that the cited deficiencies were appropriate for the following Class III deficiencies: Tag A0008, Tag A0026, Tag A0030, Tag A0052, Tag A0054, Tag A0077, Tag A0078, Tag A0083, Tag A0090, and Tag A0093. Dixie Lodge demonstrated a potential negative impact on residents should Dixie Lodge close its doors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Health Administration, enter a final order rescinding its Amended Notice of Intent to Deny Change of Ownership Application. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 10th day of May, 2018.
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, 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 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.
