The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in the rental of a dwelling based on her race, in violation of Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Part II, Florida Statutes (2015).
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the exhibit admitted into evidence and testimony offered by witnesses at the final hearing. Ms. Smith is a Black female and currently resides in Gainesville, Florida. Saul Silber Properties is a company that manages Oak Glade located at 3427 Southwest 30th Terrace, Gainesville, Florida 32608. Respondent provides residential rental apartments in Gainesville, Florida. Saul Silber is the owner of Saul Silber Properties. Ms. Smith is a former resident of apartment number 54I of Oak Glade.1/ Ms. Smith rented the apartment pursuant to a residential lease agreement entered into on January 15, 2014.2/ The lease was for a one-year renewable term. Ms. Smith filed a complaint with the Commission alleging Respondent issued her a Notice of Non-Renewal of her lease agreement on the basis of her race. The Commission issued a “No Cause” determination and Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Relief, which is the matter before the undersigned. During her tenancy at Oak Glade, Ms. Smith had raised numerous complaints with the property manager regarding matters involving her neighbor, Anne E. Dowling. Ms. Dowling, who was White, was a former resident of apartment number 54H. Ms. Smith’s issues with Ms. Dowling included complaints concerning smoking, loud music, non-residents living in the apartment, the number of visitors outside Ms. Dowling’s apartment, and Ms. Dowling’s cat scratching her car. All of the complaints were addressed and resolved by the property manager. The incident that led to the major blow-up between the neighbors involved Ms. Smith and Ms. Dowling’s daughter. Ms. Smith and Ms. Dowling’s daughter were involved in a verbal altercation after Ms. Smith verbally reprimanded Ms. Dowling’s granddaughter (age range of 7-9 years old) and her friend. Ms. Smith testified that the two girls turned their backs to her, bent over, and wiggled their buttocks in a side-to-side motion. Ms. Smith understood this gesture to be disrespectful and a suggestion to “kiss their behinds.” Ms. Dowling’s daughter was not a resident of the apartment complex. The altercation was so loud that Ms. Osteen heard people “screaming” while she was in her office. Ms. Osteen discovered Ms. Smith and Ms. Dowling’s daughter involved in a screaming match. Ms. Osteen later consulted with the senior property manager about the incident and it was determined that both Ms. Dowling and Ms. Smith would be issued a Notice of Non-Renewal. On March 15, 2016, Respondent issued Ms. Smith and Ms. Dowling a Notice of Non-Renewal, which was posted on the door of each tenant’s respective apartment. The notices did not state a reason for non-renewal. Ms. Dowling’s lease would expire effective May 30, 2016; and Ms. Smith’s lease would expire effective December 30, 2016. Prior to expiration of her lease, Ms. Dowling advised Ms. Osteen that she was terminally ill and requested that she be permitted to stay at Oak Glade. Ms. Dowling explained that her support system was located in the area and due to financial limitations, moving from the complex would create a hardship for her. For these reasons, Ms. Dowling was permitted to enter a new lease and was moved to a different apartment. The decision to permit Ms. Dowling to remain at the complex was made by the senior property manager. Ms. Dowling passed away approximately four months later, on September 28, 2016. Other than her mistaken belief that Ms. Dowling did not receive a Notice of Non-Renewal, Ms. Smith did not offer any evidence to support her claim of housing discrimination in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
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, Saul Silber Properties, LLC, did not commit a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner, Ms. Smith; and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2017H0320. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 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 29th day of August, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Cordell John, (Landlord) discriminated against Petitioner, Denise Johnson- Acosta (Johnson) on the basis of her or her daughter’s alleged handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Johnson is a Hispanic woman. She has asthma and other medical conditions. Johnson has a teenage daughter, Ashley Denise Rivera. Ashley has a seizure disorder and has bipolar disorder. Johnson is engaged to Alexis Pons. The Landlord is an African-American male. He owns the property located at 13847 Beauregard Place in Orlando, Florida (the Property). The Property is a single-family residential townhouse. At some unspecified time during calendar year 2012, Johnson approached the Landlord expressing an interest in leasing the Property. At that time, another tenant was living in the Property but was in the process of moving out. The Landlord showed Johnson the Property. Johnson expressed her complete satisfaction with the Property and that she would like to lease it (and possibly buy it in the future). At first sight, Johnson liked everything about the Property except for the back yard. On September 10, 2012, the Landlord emailed a Rental Application to Johnson. The email advised Johnson that there would be a $50 application fee which must be paid when the application was delivered. In response to the email, Johnson confirmed that she wanted to view the Property on the upcoming Thursday. On September 11, 2012, Johnson filled out the Rental Application and provided it to the Landlord for review. The application listed Johnson as the primary tenant and Ashley and Pons as additional residents. The application also noted that Johnson had a pet, a petite Chihuahua, which would be living in the unit. After reviewing the application, the Landlord notified Johnson via email that he would need pictures of the Chihuahua. He also asked how much the dog weighed. The Landlord also told Johnson that the rent would be $1,250 per month and that a $200 nonrefundable pet fee must be paid. Johnson replied that the dog weighed four pounds. She was concerned that the Landlord was now quoting $1,250 per month when earlier discussions had indicated the rent would be $1,200 per month. Johnson thanked the Landlord and agreed to provide a picture of the dog. The Landlord replied to Johnson that when pets are involved, the rent is increased slightly. Johnson and the Landlord had a conversation on September 17, 2012. By email dated September 18, 2012, Johnson told the Landlord that she had decided to withdraw her application because of “multiple misunderstandings” between the parties. At some point thereafter, Johnson decided to go through with the lease after all. On October 20, 2012, Johnson did a walk-through inspection of the Property. By way of her signature on the walk-through check list, Johnson agreed that the living room, kitchen, dining room, both bathrooms, both bedrooms, and all other portions of the Property were satisfactory. The only caveat was that there was stain on a counter in the kitchen area. Johnson said she would “advise at time of move” as to her feelings about the parking areas and the patio/terrace/deck area. On November 2, 2012, Johnson and the Landlord entered into a binding Residential Tenancy Agreement. Johnson initialed each page and signed the agreement. The agreement was witnessed by two individuals. On or about that same date, Johnson gave the Landlord several money orders: A $250 money order for the pet deposit; $50 for Pons’ application fee, and $880 for prorated rent for November. Johnson did not complain about the pet deposit at that time. Johnson moved into the Property on or about November 2, 2012. About two months later, on January 1, 2013, Johnson mailed a letter to the Landlord via certified mail, return receipt requested. The letter advised the Landlord that Johnson would be moving out of the Property on or before January 14, 2013. The letter cited several bases for the decision to move out, including: Air condition vents were “visibly covered with dust and dark surroundings”; Johnson and her daughter have severe allergies; Johnson has acute asthma and bronchitis; and The dwelling is unlivable. Johnson also claimed many violations of Florida law by the Landlord concerning the lease, including: Taking a deposit for a pet when that pet was in fact a companion dog. (Johnson submitted a letter into evidence from a behavioral health care employee. The letter, dated some five months after Johnson vacated the unit, said that Ashley would benefit from having a companion dog as she did not have many friends. There was no evidence that the Chihuahua was ever registered or approved as a companion dog.); Smoke alarms which were not in working order; Electrical breakers tripping throughout Property; Unreimbursed expenses, e.g., for changing locks; Failure to put Pons on the lease agreement despite doing a background financial check on him; and Harassment from Bank of America employees trying to collect the Landlord’s mortgage payment for the Property. In the letter stating she would be moving, Johnson expressed her sorrow that the housing situation did not work out. She then set forth the amount of deposit money she believed should be returned to her. In response, she received a letter from the Landlord’s counsel advising that her security and pet deposits had been forfeited. On January 4, 2013, the Landlord posted a notice on the Property door demanding payment of outstanding rent within three days. In lieu of payment, Johnson could vacate the premises within three days. Johnson vacated the premises. On January 14, 2013, Johnson did an exit walk-through of the Property, along with the Landlord, his mother, and Pons. At the completion of the walk- through, Johnson turned over the keys for the Property to the Landlord. Johnson claims discrimination on the part of the Landlord because he failed to recognize or accept the companion dog, failed to put Pons on the lease agreement, and failed to make accommodations for Johnson’s claimed health conditions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Denise Johnson-Acosta in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 3rd day of December, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cordell John 2921 Swoops Circle Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Denise Johnson-Acosta Post Office Box 453347 Kissimmee, Florida 34745 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race or sex in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Alicia Valentine ("Valentine") is an African- American woman who currently resides in Chicago but lived in Miami, Florida, at all relevant times. Respondent Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami, Inc. ("Catholic Charities"), is a Florida nonprofit corporation that provides social services in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Monroe counties. At no time relevant to this action did Catholic Charities sell, lease, rent, finance, broker, or manage real property, including dwellings of any nature. At all relevant times, Valentine leased Apartment No. 1410 at 1451 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, for the sum of $2,000.00 per month from her landlord, Park Place at Brickell, LLC. Before contacting Catholic Charities and setting in motion the events that led to this action, Valentine had lost her job, exhausted her unemployment compensation payments, and wound up having no income. Unable to pay rent, Valentine applied to Catholic Charities, on or around January 27, 2016, for emergency rental assistance to avoid losing her apartment. Catholic Charities runs an Emergency Services program that provides cash payments to individuals to help them pay one month's rent in crisis situations. The program limits rental assistance to a single payment of up to $1,000.00 per applicant, which may be received only once every 12 months. Catholic Charities has written eligibility criteria that an applicant must satisfy to qualify for emergency rental assistance. The eligibility criteria require that the applicant have an eviction notice; justification of need; proof of income (showing ability to continue paying the rent after assistance); some form of identification; and a Social Security card. Catholic Charities denied Valentine's request for emergency rental assistance because she failed to meet all of the eligibility requirements. Specifically, Valentine did not provide an eviction notice, nor, perhaps more important, did she provide proof of income. Thus, Valentine failed to demonstrate that she had the ability to pay the balance of her $2,000.00 monthly rent——or any subsequent month's rent——if provided the maximum $1,000.00 in emergency assistance. It is undisputed, moreover, that Valentine never personally appeared at Catholic Charities' office to verify her identity, although, in fairness to Valentine, there is some uncertainty as to whether Catholic Charities communicated to Valentine that she was required to provide proof of identification in person. The fact that Valentine did not appear in person to verify her identity is, however, ultimately immaterial, for even if she had, her application still would have been denied based on the failure to satisfy other eligibility criteria, e.g., proof of sufficient future income. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of Catholic Charities' decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Valentine, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus directed toward Valentine. There is no persuasive evidence that Valentine met the written eligibility criteria for emergency rental assistance. There is no persuasive evidence that Catholic Charities sold, leased, rented, financed, or managed real property. There is competent, persuasive evidence that Valentine did not qualify for emergency rental assistance and was denied on that basis. In sum, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Catholic Charities did not commit any prohibited act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Catholic Charities not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Valentine no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2016.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondents engaged in prohibited conduct against Petitioner by discriminating against him based on his race and/or national origin in the terms and conditions, privileges, or provision of services or facilities in the sale or rental of real property in violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Florida Commission on Human Relations is the state agency charged with investigating complaints of discriminatory housing practices and enforcing the Fair Housing Act. It is also charged with investigating fair housing complaints filed with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601, et seq. Petitioner, Emmanuel Agbara, is an adult, black male, who is of Nigerian decent. On or about September 18, 2008, Petitioner submitted an offer to purchase Condominium 406 in Orchid Springs Village. Because the real property sought to be purchased was a part of a condominium, there were several contingencies imposed by the declaration of condominium and associated house rules. Respondent, Orchid Springs Condominium, No. 200, Inc., is a non-profit corporation charged with the management of the condominium. Incidental to this responsibility, in conjunction with Bay Tree Management Company, the board of directors has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of the sale of a condominium to a third party. In the event the board of directors or Bay Tree Management Company disapproves of the sale, the condominium documents outline a procedure wherein the proposed sale can be pursued by the property owner and prospective buyer (Petitioner herein). After Orchid Springs advised Petitioner that it had not approved his sale, this alternative was not pursued. Orchid Springs is a part of a mixed-use development of condominiums, patio homes, and private [single-family] residences and is diverse in terms of religion, national origin and income. Prospective buyers, and the Petitioner herein, were required to complete an application that inquired into the prospective buyer's background, intended use of the property, and required three character references. In addition, prospective buyers were required to pay for a "background" check. On September 20, 2008, Petitioner traveled from his home in Maryland to meet with Respondent, John Carroll, president of the condominium board of directors. As they met, an inspection of the condominium unit was being conducted by a home inspection professional. Petitioner anticipated that he would meet with Carroll and two other board members for the personal interview required by the condominium documents as a prerequisite for board approval. The two board members were not available to meet with Petitioner during his September 20, 2008, visit. During the course of the discussion between Petitioner and Carroll, it became apparent that Petitioner anticipated being an "absentee landlord." Carroll advised Petitioner that the owner/residents had various problems with renters, including recent police activity incidental to a drug laboratory in one of the rented condominium units. Carroll also related that four of the absentee owner units were in foreclosure and that placed an economic burden on the remaining owners. During the discussion between Petitioner and Carroll, Petitioner inquired as to whether he could do the three-board member interview by telephone. Mr. Carroll advised him that a telephone conference might be arranged, but that one board member could not do it alone. On October 8, 2008, Petitioner submitted his Association Application. As a part of the application process, Petitioner certified that he had been supplied copies of the Articles of Declaration of Condominium Ownership and By-Laws of Orchid Springs Village, No. 200, Inc.; the Service and Maintenance Agreement; and the manual, "Condominium Living--The Seville." The Association Application includes the following language: "[A]pplicant purchasing Condominium certifies that he/she has . . . read [and] agrees to abide by" the foregoing documents. The Association Application states that "[i]mmediately after submission of the application, Applicant is requested to arrange with the President for a personal interview with at least [three] Board Members present. Such personal interview is a firm requirement [and] may not be waived." Following receipt of a prospective buyer or renter's Association Application, the tasks of conducting the customary background and criminal checks are divided among board members. In this instance, Mrs. Thibodaux, now deceased, did the background check; and Mrs. Douglas did the criminal background check, which, apparently, was a local records check utilizing the county records available through the internet. Testimony reveals that Mrs. Thibodaux reported that she had some problems with two of Petitioner's character references and that the Social Security number he provided was incorrect. This testimony is discounted as Mrs. Thibodaux is dead and not available to testify, and there is no indication that Petitioner's Social security number is incorrect. In addition, two of Petitioner's character references testified at the final hearing. Mrs. Douglas' local criminal background check revealed a January 13, 1997, arrest for battery--domestic violence. The case was "nolle prossed" after the Petitioner was placed in pre-trial diversion. Orchid Spring's critical examination and appraisal of prospective buyers and renters is apparently "slipshod," but not atypical when the prospective cost of a thorough examination that would involve an investigation of an individual's credit history and a thorough criminal and background check. Concern raised by the background and criminal check prompted Carroll to contact Petitioner and request that he come to Florida and meet with three board members for the interview required by the condominium documents. Petitioner was unable to meet with the interview committee. On November 7, 2008, Petitioner was advised by Respondents that his application had been denied. No evidence of damages was advanced by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Emmanuel Agbara 1822 Metzerott Road, No. 206 Adelphi, Maryland 20783 Rex P. Cowan, Esquire Post Office Box 857 Winter Haven, Florida 33882-0857
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner, Patricia McDonough, on the basis of her race, violating Subsections 760.23(1), (2), or (4), Florida Statutes (2002). If discriminatory conduct has been proven, whether quantifiable damages, or other allowable remedies, have been proven under Section 760.35(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Patricia McDonough, is a Caucasian female who, at one time, qualified for housing assistance under the Section 8 Rental Voucher (Voucher) Program and is a protected person under the FHA. Respondent, Osceola County Housing Authority, is a department of the Osceola County Board of County Commissioners, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is the local housing authority (HA) under the Federal FHA. In 1997, Petitioner participated in the Voucher program, which is administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Vouchers are portable, which allows a participant to move to another jurisdiction and request a transfer from one local HA to another. A portability packet of necessary paperwork is prepared by the originating HA and mailed directly to the receiving HA to facilitate the transfer and to prevent fraud. If the receiving HA accepts the transferred Voucher to administer, the originating HA pays the receiving HA 80 percent of the administrative fee it receives from HUD, in addition to the rental and utility assistance payments. Petitioner had a valid Voucher in 1997 that was administered at the local level by the Maryland Housing Opportunity Commission located at 10400 Detrick Avenue, Kensington, Maryland 20895 (Maryland). Petitioner requested Maryland to transfer her Voucher to the City of Kissimmee, Florida (Kissimmee), in 1997, which was the local HA for Osceola County, Florida, at that time. Kissimmee accepted the Maryland Voucher on August 28, 1997, and agreed to administer it on behalf of Maryland. Respondent assumed responsibility for the Voucher program from Kissimmee on October 1, 2000. From 1997 to the present, Kissimmee and Respondent contracted with HUD for a total of 193 Vouchers. This does not include any transferred Vouchers administered through the portability requirements of the HUD program. Kissimmee created a waiting list in 1998 that contained more than 500 names of eligible participants for the 193 Vouchers. The waiting list has not been reopened since it was created. The list was created and is administered in a nondiscriminatory and race-neutral manner by the HA. Respondent accepts and administers transferred Vouchers and currently administers in excess of 700 such Vouchers. A transferred Voucher does not affect the 193 contracted Vouchers. A participant must be recertified annually to keep one of the 193 Vouchers. As participants surrender one of these 193 Vouchers, a new participant is awarded the Voucher from Respondent's waiting list. As participants surrender one of the 700 transferred Vouchers, Respondent has no authority to award it to anyone, whether on the waiting list or not. Petitioner was never on Respondent's waiting list, since Petitioner's Voucher was a transferred Voucher from Maryland. On or about July 13, 2000, Petitioner requested Kissimmee to transfer her Voucher to the County of Fairfax, Department of Housing, Fairfax, Virginia (Virginia). Kissimmee prepared the transfer packet and mailed it to Virginia at Petitioner's request. Petitioner moved from Virginia back to Osceola County in early May 2001. Petitioner testified that when she moved back to Osceola County, she brought her paperwork with her. She then requested Respondent, in a letter dated May 10, 2001, to reinstate her transfer Voucher from Virginia. Petitioner testified that she included her paperwork with the letter. However, there is no credible evidence to support her position. Petitioner has not shown that she had a valid portable Voucher from another HA to transfer to Respondent when she returned from Virginia in May 2001, nor did she offer proof that she requested Virginia to mail her voucher and transfer request directly to Respondent, as HUD policy requires. Respondent has never received paperwork for a transfer Voucher for Petitioner from another jurisdiction, including Maryland or Virginia, after Kissimmee transferred Petitioner's Voucher to Virginia in 2000. Respondent cannot reinstate a Voucher from another HA. Respondent has policies and procedures in place to prevent racial discrimination. Respondent denied Petitioner's request based upon its policies and procedures. Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner based upon her race. Petitioner is not eligible for one of the 193 Vouchers Respondent is contracted for through HUD. Respondent does not have any Vouchers available to award to Petitioner and has not reopened the waiting list since it was created in 1998. Petitioner has failed to produce any evidence that Respondent racially discriminated against her in regard to the administration of the Voucher program or failed to rent her a dwelling unit for which she was eligible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order denying the relief sought and dismissing the petition filed in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 4th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia McDonough 5121 Violet Lane Kissimmee, Florida 34758 Scott Polodna, Esquire Osceola County Housing Authority One Courthouse Square, Suite 4200 Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 Did the action of Respondent, in denying Petitioner the use of an emotional support dog in her condominium unit for her son, violate a legal duty to reasonably accommodate the needs of her son, A.C.?
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Facts From Pre-hearing Stipulation Filed June 20, 2016 Petitioner was aware that the Association had a "no pet" policy and signed a document acknowledging same. Petitioner was sent a letter on February 24, 2014, from the Association's then property manager advising Petitioner that the Association had been advised that a dog was being kept in their unit, and reminding Petitioner of the Association's no pet policy. A Fines Committee hearing was scheduled for March 10, 2014, in regard to Petitioner's violation of the no pet policy. Petitioner was not issued a fine for violating the pet policy. Prior to the Fines Committee hearing, Petitioner made her first claim that her son had a disability and required an emotional support animal. Prior to the Fines Committee hearing, Petitioner made her first request to the Association for a reasonable accommodation. The Association's Board of Directors scheduled an interview with Petitioner on April 30, 2014, wherein Petitioner would be able to explain her request for a reasonable accommodation, the need for the emotional support animal, and her son's disability. The Association advised Petitioner, prior to the scheduled interview, that Petitioner may provide the Association with any documents Petitioner believes support her position. An interview and/or meeting occurred on April 30, 2014, between Petitioner, her husband, Yovani Cabreriza, Petitioner's attorney, and certain members of the Board of Directors, along with the Association's attorney, to discuss Petitioner's request for an accommodation. The Association determined that Petitioner was not in need of a reasonable accommodation and requested that the dog be removed via written correspondence dated May 19, 2014. The Association again requested that the subject dog be removed via written correspondence dated May 22, 2015, and advised Petitioner that an arbitration action would follow if the dog was not removed. A Petition for Arbitration was filed on June 4, 2015. Petitioner's response to the arbitration petition was filed on September 14, 2015. The arbitrator issued an order striking the complainants' defense and requiring proof of filing a Fair Housing Complaint. Petitioner filed her housing complaint with FCHR and Housing and Urban Development on November 2, 2015. On March 8, 2016, the FCHR housing investigator issued a "Notice of Determination of No Cause," concluding that reasonable cause does not exist to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred. On April 8, 2016, FCHR received a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Housing Practice from Petitioner. Findings of Fact From the Hearing This case involves a family who lives at Respondent's condominium complex, Arlen House Condominium, located at 300 Bayview Drive, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160. Petitioner owns condominium unit PH05. Petitioner resides at this location with her husband and minor son, A.C. Petitioner's son was 11 years old in 2014. Her son has suffered from an anxiety disorder since he was a young boy. A.C.'s anxiety disorder problem became worse in 2012. He cried every morning and did not want to go to school. Apparently, he had difficulty breathing during anxiety or panic attacks. His mother described him as being "completely withdrawn" at school.1/ To help her son cope with his anxiety problem, Petitioner bought him a small dog, Jake, in the latter part of 2012. When she bought the dog, she knew that the condominium had a "no pet policy," but failed to alert the condominium or request permission to keep the dog.2/ In early 2014, the Association discovered that the dog was being kept in violation of the Association's rules and regulations. It notified Petitioner in writing on February 24, 2014, and told her to remove the animal. Resp. Ex. 2(e). March 10, 2014, Meeting Petitioner met with the Association's Fine Committee on March 10, 2014. During the meeting, Petitioner presented, for the first time, a letter or letters from the child's doctor, Rasciel Socarras, M.D.3/ Resp. Ex. 2(f). After the meeting before the Fine Committee, counsel for the Association sent Petitioner's counsel a letter dated March 21, 2014. Resp. Ex. 2(g). Essentially, the letter reiterated the "no pet policy" and concluded that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate to the Fine Committee that her son had a disability that substantially limited a major life activity or that an accommodation was necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their condominium unit. The letter also requested a meeting to help the Association "conduct a meaningful review of your client's request for an accommodation."4/ Prior to the next meeting between the parties on April 30, 2014, counsel for the Association sent a letter to Petitioner's counsel dated April 18, 2014. In that letter, counsel requested copies of any and all documents that may support the boy's disability and need for an accommodation, including but not limited to the medical records that demonstrate his disability.5/ April 30, 2014, Meeting As arranged, Petitioner and her husband, along with their legal counsel, met with the Board of Directors on April 30, 2014. At the meeting, Petitioner explained her son's anxiety problem.6/ Although the record was not clear on this point, based on the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, the undersigned concludes that the two (2) letters (dated and undated) from Dr. Socarras were reviewed and discussed during the April 30, 2014, meeting with Petitioner.7/ The board members asked Petitioner several questions about her son's condition. Petitioner informed the Board of Directors that her son was not on any medication to treat his anxiety, nor was he receiving any mental health counseling or therapy. Petitioner told the Board of Directors that she had diagnosed the child as having problems with anxiety. The Board of Directors also asked her how her son was performing in school and learned that he was enrolled in the gifted learning program at his school.8/ As a result of the meeting, the Board of Directors concluded: (1) that it did not have enough information to determine whether the child was limited in his ability to live in the unit; (2) that he had a disability; or (3) that the pet was medically necessary for him. As a follow-up to that meeting, on May 19, 2014, the Association's counsel sent a letter to Petitioner. The letter outlined the Board of Directors' position and speaks for itself. See Resp. Ex. 2(i). The letter stated in relevant part: At this time, the Board of Directors can neither approve your request for an accommodation nor can it provide an exception to its "no pet" policy. You have been unable to provide information that supports that your son suffers from a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of his daily activities. There has been no documentation to support that your son has been diagnosed or treated for a disability. More importantly, you have not provided relevant information that your son has a disability or that the dog helps alleviate any identified symptoms. The letter concluded by demanding that the dog, Jake, be removed from the condominium unit no later than Monday, June 2, 2014.9/ Nearly a year of "radio silence" passed with no activity by either party. The Association did not check on the removal of the pet, and Petitioner did not remove the dog despite the demand by the Association. A year later, on May 15, 2015, the Association acted and sent another letter to Petitioner demanding that she remove the pet. Again, Petitioner did not remove the pet. On June 4, 2015, the Association filed a petition for mandatory non-binding arbitration with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Ultimately, the arbitrator entered an order on November 19, 2015, staying the arbitration case until the resolution of the discrimination complaint filed by Petitioner with FCHR. Based on the evidence presented, the undersigned concludes that during the meeting on April 30, 2014, with the Board of Directors, that other than the letter(s) from Dr. Socarras, and an identification certificate for their pet dog Jake, there was no other medical information or documentation provided by Petitioner to assist Respondent in reviewing and evaluating her request for the accommodation to keep Jake in the unit.10/ As a related topic, the Board of Directors had previously approved service animals for at least two (2) other residents.11/ One resident had suffered a stroke and needed assistance to walk. Another resident had a serious medical condition and was allowed to keep a service animal which was trained to detect the onset of the person's medical condition. In both instances, the Board of Directors followed the same process followed in Petitioner's case. Letters were sent and meetings were held. However, in the cases where a service animal was approved, the Board of Directors requested and was provided medical records which it relied upon to conclude that a service animal was needed as a reasonable accommodation. Prior to this hearing before DOAH, the Board of Directors had not been informed, and no claim was made, that "learning" was a major life activity that was substantially impaired by A.C.'s anxiety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint for discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of August, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Hialeah Housing Authority (the Housing Authority), discriminated against Petitioner, Diana Varona, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (the Act), and, if so, the relief to which Petitioner is entitled.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black Hispanic female. She is a former resident of an apartment complex administered by the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority is a public housing authority that administers the section 8 program within Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1437f. Under the section 8 program, the Housing Authority uses funds, supplied by HUD, to pay a percentage of the monthly rent on a leased "unit" directly to the landlord. The section 8 program tenant pays the balance of the monthly rent to the landlord. As part of the Housing Authority’s program, each year section 8 participants must complete a personal declaration form. This form requires specific information about various aspects of the declarant and those family members authorized to participate in the program. The information includes the declarant’s financial circumstances and other facts. In or around January 2012, Petitioner moved into an apartment complex administered by the Housing Authority from out–of-state. Petitioner and her two minor children were the only authorized occupants for the apartment. Petitioner was diagnosed with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), bipolar disorder, and cancer in 2012 or 2013. She was scheduled for cancer surgery in July 2013, but had to cancel the surgery due to an unexpected addition to her family. On July 22, 2013, Petitioner requested to break her lease when she reported to the Housing Authority what she considered to be “life-threatening” conditions in her apartment, as well as the harassment of her children when they played outside. Petitioner had to go up the Housing Authority’s chain- of-command to get assistance; however, her apartment was inspected. As a result of the inspection, Petitioner’s landlord advised the Housing Authority that there were additional people living in Petitioner’s apartment. Based on the landlord’s observation of unauthorized persons living in the apartment, the Housing Authority instituted a fraud investigation. Detective Gutierrez is a Hialeah police officer assigned to the Housing Authority as an investigator. Detective Gutierrez conducts investigations into alleged violations of section 414.39, Florida Statutes (fraud). On August 13, 2013, Detective Gutierrez knocked on Petitioner’s front door. Petitioner opened the door and engaged in a conversation with the detective. While standing at Petitioner’s front door, Detective Gutierrez observed two adult males in Petitioner’s apartment. Jose Varona, Petitioner’s uncle, was released to Petitioner on July 24, 2013,4/ and was living in Petitioner’s apartment. Lazaro Gomez, Petitioner’s boyfriend, was also living in Petitioner’s apartment.5/ Once his conversation was completed, Detective Gutierrez returned to his office and reviewed Petitioner’s section 8 personal declaration form. On the form, Detective Gutierrez noted that Petitioner stated that she had never been arrested. Detective Gutierrez researched police records and determined that Petitioner had, in fact, been arrested in April 2013 for making a threat against an individual. Additionally, Detective Gutierrez noted that Petitioner’s stated income on the declaration form did not support the purchase of an automobile via a loan agreement. On August 13, 2013, Petitioner submitted to the Housing Authority an incomplete application for a live-in aide to assist her. The Housing Authority’s application is seven pages long and Petitioner failed to submit two pages that provided information from her treating physician. The Housing Authority’s process to determine whether to grant a live-in aide request involves a three step process: the verification that the requesting individual is disabled (meets the definition of a disabled person via a physician’s confirmation); that the individual needs the assistance of another person (which is also determined by a physician’s documentation); and that the live-in-aide qualifies as a live-in aide. On August 22, the Housing Authority denied Petitioner’s application for a live-in aide, but notified her that she could supplement her request with additional documentation, including the doctor’s verification. Petitioner did not supplement her application. Petitioner also claimed she filed a request to allow a family member, Mr. Varona, to move in with her family. Petitioner discussed with the Housing Authority personnel about adding her uncle to her contract. However, the Housing Authority never received a written request for Mr. Varona to be added to Petitioner’s voucher. It is the Housing Authority’s policy that it does not add adult family members to a voucher contract except via marriage or legal guardianship. Although Petitioner holds the power of attorney for Mr. Varona, she is not his legal guardian. Detective Gutierrez completed his investigation and filed his report with the Housing Authority. On August 26, the Housing Authority notified Petitioner that her participation in the section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program was terminated, effective September 30. The basis given for Petitioner’s housing termination were listed as: engaging in criminal activity and failing to disclose it to the Housing Authority in her personal declaration in July 2013 (verification that Petitioner had been arrested on April 30, 2013); and allowing an unauthorized person to reside in the apartment. Petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing regarding the termination of her housing voucher. The hearing was originally scheduled for October 30, 2013; however, on October 28, Petitioner requested a continuance of the hearing based on her physical condition. The request was granted and the hearing was continued to December 3. In early November 2013, Petitioner asked the Housing Authority for a reasonable accommodation for an apartment with accessible features. The Housing Authority did not approve or deny this request, as it does not own the apartments, but offered to send her a list of accessible units known to the Housing Authority. Petitioner never contacted the Housing Authority for additional information. Petitioner was represented by an attorney at the Housing Authority’s December 3 hearing. As a result of this hearing, Petitioner’s termination of participation in the section 8 program was upheld. That said, Petitioner failed to present any credible evidence that other residents in the community were treated differently.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 November, 2015.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was subject to discrimination in the rental of a dwelling, or in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling, based on her gender, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Part II, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lyric Black, is an adult female currently residing in Marietta, Georgia. Respondent, Holmes County Housing Authority, administers federal housing-assistance programs, including the HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Respondent is located at 107 East Montana Avenue, Bonifay, Florida 32425. Respondent maintains a local preference for housing assistance. The local preference is reflected in two policies. First, Respondent’s waiting list policy affords highest priority to local residents. While applicants from other states or counties may apply for a voucher, local applicants enjoy higher priority on the waiting list. Second, Respondent’s portability policy authorizes recipients to port their voucher (i.e., use their voucher in another state or county) only if they have participated in the program for 12 months. Participation means residing in the local jurisdiction on the housing voucher. Petitioner applied, in person, for a housing choice voucher from Respondent on May 28, 2014. On her application, Petitioner represented her residence as an undisclosed local shelter for victims of domestic violence. Petitioner represented that she had lived at the shelter for the past four months and had previously resided in Marietta, Georgia. Petitioner listed the names and ages of four minor children living with her, ranging in age from 5 months to 14 years old. Petitioner also disclosed that she was pregnant. Petitioner received a preferential position on Respondent’s waiting list based on her residence in the area (at the local domestic violence shelter). At some point after filing her application with Respondent, Petitioner “returned” to Georgia. The record does not clearly establish where in Georgia to which she “returned” after making application. Respondent was unaware that Petitioner had “returned” to Georgia after applying for the housing choice voucher in May 2014. Respondent understood Petitioner had continued to reside locally, in the domestic violence shelter or otherwise in the county, between May and October 2014. In October 2014, Respondent notified Petitioner that Petitioner’s name had advanced on the waiting list and would shortly be at the top. Petitioner testified that she moved to Bonifay in October 2014 “seeking to flee domestic violence.” Petitioner’s testimony on this point conflicted with her testimony on cross- examination that she moved to Bonifay in October because she received word that her name was close to the top of the waiting list for a housing voucher. On October 29, 2014, Petitioner submitted most of the documentation required to receive her housing voucher from Respondent. Petitioner needed to submit a few outstanding documents and sign her voucher form. On November 4, 2014, Petitioner notified Respondent that she would be delayed in submitting the last of her paperwork and coming in to sign her voucher because she was having a baby. Catrina Carroll allowed Petitioner until November 12, 2014, to come in to complete her paperwork and sign her voucher. Petitioner gave birth to a baby girl on November 4, 2014, in Georgia. According to Petitioner, she returned to Holmes County with the new baby and her other children “two or three days later.” Petitioner completed her paperwork and signed her voucher at Respondent’s office on November 12, 2014. After issuing a voucher, Respondent requires recipients to identify a local rental unit, request Respondent to inspect and approve the unit, and connect utilities and occupy the unit within 60 days. Petitioner was given the same amount of time to complete the required steps to become a participant in the voucher program. Respondent had no contact from Petitioner between November 12, 2014, and December 30, 2014. On December 30, 2014, Petitioner faxed a letter to Respondent titled “Portability Request.” Petitioner’s letter read as follows: I have experienced a recent severe domestic violence incident and seek to move with continued tenant-based assistance (proof attached). In reference to the initial 12- month residency requirement, I do understand that according to the Violence Against Women and Justice Department and Reauthorization Act 2005 (VAWA 2005) amended section 8(r) of the U.S. Housing Act to provide an exception to the prohibition against a family moving under the Portability provisions in violation of the lease. Furthermore, Denying [sic] the move would violate VAWA, which provides that an applicant may not be denied admission or assistance, terminated from participation in or evicted because the victim is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking. Denying such a request to port is also inconsistent with HUD’s directive regarding other portability rules. In closing, I respectfully request HCHA to consider this exception to the initial 12- month residency requirement and allow me to port my voucher to: 4273 Wendell Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30336 Office: (404) 588-4950 TTY Line: (404)696-0449 Fax: (404) 472-3431 This letter also include [sic] a portability request to address an emergency situation over which I have no control. Attached with this letter to serve as proof of domestic violence: Police Report; ER medical record of injuries; and TPO. I’ve also included previous police reports of documented domestic abuse. Petitioner attached to the letter the following: an ex parte family violence protective order filed December 8, 2014, by the Superior Court of Clayton County, Georgia, against C.H. (whom Petitioner identified as her ex- boyfriend); a police report documenting an arrest of C.H. for aggravated assault on Petitioner during an incident on December 3, 2014, at 7007 Richmond Court, Apartment C, Jonesboro, Georgia 30236; a single-page printout from Southern Regional Medical Center Emergency Services dated December 4, 2014, documenting an evaluation and treatment of Petitioner for injuries associated with an alleged assault; and, a letter to Petitioner from the Clayton County State Attorney dated December 12, 2014, offering the services of the Victim Family Assistance Program. On December 30, 2014, by letter from Catrina Carroll, Respondent’s Executive Director, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s voucher and denied Petitioner’s request to port her voucher. In the termination letter, Ms. Carroll stated, “[I]t seems that you have relocated back to Jonesboro or Marietta, GA and have therefore invalidated your preference status with our PHA. We are revoking your local status and terminating your Voucher effective immediately.” Ms. Carroll added, “You are not being denied assistance because of VAWA criteria. Special accommodations are not given for VAWA, and our policy only gives preference for local applicants.” Petitioner argues that she and her minor children were forcibly taken from the parking lot of the domestic violence shelter in Panama City and removed to Georgia on November 18, 2014, by her ex-boyfriend. Petitioner maintains that she was held captive in Georgia for three weeks, until December 4, 2014, when she was able to escape and call the police for assistance. Petitioner gave a lengthy statement to police when her ex-boyfriend was arrested on December 4, 2014. The statement police report does not include anything about being forcibly removed from Florida and held against her will in Georgia between November 18 and December 4, 2014. Petitioner produced a document at final hearing purporting to be a copy of her bank statement showing debit and ATM transactions made in Bonifay, Florida, during the months of October and November 2014. Petitioner produced no witness to authenticate the document and the document is not self- authenticating pursuant to section 90.902, Florida Statutes (2015). Apparently, Petitioner believes her personal family violence circumstance is sufficient grounds for an exception to Respondent’s portability policy. On cross-examination, however, Petitioner admitted her effort to obtain portability of her voucher was “a gamble.” Nevertheless, Petitioner expressed dismay that Respondent revoked her voucher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2015H0187. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2015, 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 4th day of September, 2015.
