The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Steak n Shake Restaurant (“Steak n Shake”), violated section 760.08, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on his race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white male who lives in Ormond Beach, Florida. Petitioner testified that he had been a regular customer of the Steak n Shake at 120 Williamson Boulevard in Ormond Beach for about four years. Petitioner entered the restaurant on March 30, 2015, and was seated by server Amanda Hobbs, a black female. Petitioner testified that neither Ms. Hobbs nor any other server would wait on him. He saw Ms. Hobbs take the order of a black couple who came into the restaurant after he did. Petitioner complained to the manager, Mark Regoli, a male of mixed race. Petitioner testified that he told Mr. Regoli that the service had been poor for several months, and complained about not being served on this occasion. Petitioner stated that Mr. Regoli accused him of being “loud,” but explained that he is hearing-impaired and may sometimes speak in a loud voice. Petitioner testified that Mr. Regoli became angry, “got up in my face,” and blocked Petitioner from leaving the restaurant. Petitioner testified that he left the restaurant. It was only later that he learned that the police had been called by someone at Steak n Shake. Counsel for Steak n Shake did not cross-examine Petitioner. Steak n Shake called no witnesses. Steak n Shake’s documentary evidence consisted of hearsay witness statements that cannot be considered in the absence of admissible evidence that the hearsay may be said to supplement or explain. Therefore, Petitioner’s narrative is the only sworn, admissible evidence before this tribunal. Though Petitioner’s testimony was clearly a self-serving version of the events that occurred at the Steak n Shake on March 30, 2015, it is the only version of events that may be considered under the rules of evidence. Petitioner’s testimony lacks complete credibility only when one compares it with the excluded witness statements of the Steak n Shake employees. If one considers Petitioner’s testimony standing alone, as this tribunal must, the worst one can say is that it is one-sided and incomplete. This state of affairs is not the fault of Petitioner, who was under no obligation to tell anything other than his side of the story. Petitioner represented himself and so is not entitled to attorney’s fees. Petitioner may be entitled to an award of costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order: Finding that Respondent, Steak n Shake Restaurant, committed an act of public accommodations discrimination against Petitioner, Virgil W. Phillips; Prohibiting any future acts of discrimination by Respondent; and Awarding Petitioner his costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent Best Western Plus, Oakland Park Inn (Respondent or Hotel) discriminated against Petitioner Sharon L. Garratt (Petitioner or Ms. Garratt) in a place or places of public accommodation because of her disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been wheelchair bound for over 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. On February 2, 2013, Petitioner’s husband, Mr. Mel Garratt, booked two hotel rooms at the Hotel for the night of November 16, 2013. Respondent owns and operates the Hotel. The rooms were booked through the online “Booking.com” website. The website is not affiliated with Best Western hotels. Rather, the Booking.com website is an independent booking agent for various hotel operators and hotel chains. Mr. Garratt requested that one of the rooms be wheelchair accessible. While the booking confirmation shows that one wheelchair-accessible room was requested, only standard rooms were booked by Mr. Garratt, not wheelchair-accessible rooms. Wheelchair-accessible rooms were not available at the time of the booking because Respondent had closed all five of its “handicap” rooms for renovation. At the time, the Hotel had taken initial steps to upgrade the rooms to meet applicable standards for handicap accessibility. Petitioner called the Hotel at the time of the booking and was advised by the Hotel clerk that there were no wheelchair-accessible rooms available because of renovations. According to Ms. Garratt, the clerk agreed that since the Garratt’s reservations were over nine months away, the renovations for wheelchair accessibility would probably be complete by the time of the Garratt’s anticipated November 16, 2013, arrival. There was no evidence presented, however, that Petitioner was ever guaranteed or promised that a wheelchair- accessible room would be available at the Hotel on the date of their reservations. In addition, although Petitioner alleged that Respondent advertised handicap-accessible rooms at the time the rooms were booked, Petitioner did not retain copies of those alleged ads and the evidence was otherwise insufficient to show that such advertisements were made by the Hotel. Neither Petitioner nor her husband made any attempt to contact the Hotel again regarding the availability of wheelchair-accessible rooms until their arrival on November 13, 2013. Upon their arrival, the Garratts were informed that a wheelchair-accessible room was not available. Personnel at the Hotel offered to cancel Petitioner’s reservation and made calls to surrounding hotels in an attempt to locate a wheelchair- accessible room. When no such room could be found, Petitioner decided to stay the night of November 13, 2013, in the previously reserved, standard room. That night, Petitioner fell in the standard room. By affidavit, Petitioner described her resulting injuries as “pain and bruising to [her] backside,” but offered no further evidence of complications or related medical expenses. The Hotel was built in the 1950s, prior to the enactment of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Evidence demonstrated that Respondent closed its rooms that had previously been designated as “handicap”-accessible rooms prior to Petitioner’s booking because they were not compliant with applicable ADA standards. In October 2011, the Hotel hired architect Troy Ammons to perform an ADA survey, who noted ADA deficiencies. Thereafter, on February 24, 2012, Mr. Ammons entered into a contract with the Hotel to prepare plans for renovating the Hotel’s five designated handicap-accessible rooms. Later, plans for renovating a sixth room were added. On January 28, 2013, the plans were submitted to the City of Fort Lauderdale, Building Department. Plan review comments were finalized by the City of Fort Lauderdale Building and Plumbing Departments on April 9, 2013, and building permits were issued for the work on April 26, 2013. On November 4, 2013, the Hotel entered into an ADA Consent Decree in the case of Access for the Disabled, Inc. and Denise Payne v. Oakland Park Inn, Case No. 13-60543 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Fla.). The Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court on November 6, 2013, obligated Respondent to make certain ADA improvements to the Hotel on or before August 1, 2014. Respondent elected to make more extensive ADA renovations to the hotel than required by the Consent Decree. The ADA renovations were delayed because the Hotel changed contractors and rebid the job. As a result of the delay, the building permits for the renovations expired prior to construction. On July 14, 2014, Respondent signed a new contract with Pemberton Building, Inc., a licensed general contractor, to complete the ADA work. The Hotel obtained extensions for completing the work, and the building permits were revived. Although Petitioner suggested that changes to accommodate her disability would be easy, the renovations required to make the Hotel rooms ADA compliant were extensive. They were not a matter of just putting in a handrail or widening a door opening. The six rooms at the Hotel undergoing renovations for ADA compliance were completely gutted. At the time of the hearing, the plumbing for the six rooms had been completed and the remaining work was proceeding. In sum, the evidence presented by Petitioner in this case was insufficient to show that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based upon Petitioner’s handicap or 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 Petitioner’s Complaint and Petition for Relief, and denying Respondent’s request of an award of costs and attorney fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 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 6th day of January, 2015.
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 Whether Respondent Versailles Plaza Condo Association, Inc., ("Respondent") failed to provide reasonable accommodations for Petitioner Marcella Zambrano's disability in violation of Florida's Fair Housing Act, and, if so, the relief that is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Marcella Zambrano ("Marcella") is a 28-year- old-female, who is mentally retarded and suffers from cerebral palsy. Marcella weighs 260 pounds, has the mental age of a two-year-old, cannot speak, has difficulty walking, and frequently falls down when she attempts to walk. Marcella attended the final hearing in a wheelchair, and she has obvious physical and cognitive impairments. Marcella requires the use of a wheelchair due to her very limited mobility. She cannot be left alone for very long, and she is unable to wheel herself in a wheelchair. Petitioner Liliana Zambrano is Marcella's mother and primary caregiver. Liliana Zambrano weighs 135 pounds, and pushes Marcella in the wheelchair. The wheelchair weighs approximately forty pounds, and it is difficult for Liliana Zambrano to transport Marcella in the wheelchair. Petitioners reside in a third-floor unit at the Versailles Plaza Condominium in Miami, Florida. Respondent is the condominium association for the condominium complex. Petitioner Liliana Zambrano has two assigned parking spots for her unit within the complex's resident parking lot. Petitioners reside in the last unit on the far-east side of the residential building in which their unit is located. There is only one entrance from the parking lot into the condominium building in which Petitioners' unit is located. The entrance to the building is located in the middle of the building. The distance from Petitioners' assigned parking spot to the entrance of the building is approximately 50 yards. The distance from the entrance of the building to Petitioners' unit is approximately another 50 yards. Thus, the total distance from the assigned resident parking spot to Petitioners' unit is approximately 100 yards. Marcella attends a day program at the Association for Retarded Citizens ("ARC") from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., three days a week. In order to get to the program, a bus arrives at the front of the condominium complex to pick her up. A gate is located at the front of the condominium complex. The bus stops to pick Marcella up just outside the gate. In order to get Marcella to the bus in the mornings, Liliana Zambrano must push her in the wheelchair from their apartment through the entrance of the building, then from the entrance of the building through the parking lot, and then from the parking lot through the front gate. Once Petitioners reach the gate, Liliana Zambrano must activate a hand-held remote-controlled device for the gate to open. When the gate opens, Liliana Zambrano must then push Marcella's wheelchair to get her out of the complex and to the bus. No ramp is located in the vicinity of the gate. This mode of transporting Marcella is repeated in the opposite direction in the afternoons when the bus returns to the complex to drop Marcella off from the ARC program. Petitioners requested that Respondent provide them a reasonable accommodation due to Marcella's handicap by re-assigning at least one of their parking spots closer to the entrance of the building. Petitioners further requested that Respondent provide them a reasonable accommodation for Marcella's handicap by allowing the ARC bus to enter the building's drive-way to drop her off in the afternoons. Respondent offered Petitioners a new parking spot outside the fenced-in condominium parking lot in an area typically reserved for visitors of the complex. In order to transport Marcella to and from the parking space proposed by Respondent as an accommodation, Liliana Zambrano would be required to push Marcella's wheelchair through a spring-loaded gate that will not open or close automatically. Moreover, Petitioners would have to negotiate two curbs, which are each five to six inches high. Furthermore, the space is in a high traffic area directly in front of a fire hydrant. As to the request regarding access for the bus, Respondent refused to allow the bus to enter the complex through the gate. The evidence adduced at the final hearing established that Marcella is a handicapped person because she has physical and mental impairments which substantially limit one or more life activities, and she has developmental disabilities. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Respondent knew of Marcella's handicap, that reasonable accommodations were requested and are necessary to afford Petitioners an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling and facilities, and that Respondent refused to provide the reasonable accommodations for Marcella's disability by failing to assign Liliana Zambrano a designated accessible parking spot closer to the entrance of the building and by failing to allow the ARC bus to enter the complex. Respondent failed to articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by FCHR requiring that Respondent: provide Petitioners with an accessible parking space closer to the entrance of the building; allow the ARC bus to enter the complex through the gate; and award Petitioners' counsel their reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing this action. If there is a dispute regarding the amount of attorneys' fees and costs, remand this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of determining the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 6th day of June, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in Petitioner’s Public Accommodations Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on September 6, 2007, and if so, what relief should be provided.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American woman living in the Jacksonville area. She is married to Wayne Benedict and is the mother of Bryan Benedict. On July 23, 2007, Petitioner went to Wal-Mart to do the family’s grocery shopping. Her son, Bryan, and his friend, Adarious Pickens, also African-American, were with her. When she arrived at Wal-Mart, she proceeded to the deli counter, where she usually begins her shopping trip. On the day in question, the numbering system in the deli was broken. When operating, the numbering system dispenses tickets with numbers on them which determine which customers arrived first and who receives service first. At the time Petitioner approached the deli counter, three Caucasian customers were present and waiting for service. After the three Caucasian customers were served, another Caucasian customer approached the deli counter and was waited upon. Because Petitioner believed that the last Caucasian customer had been served out of turn, Petitioner left the deli area to find a manager. After learning that the manager had gone for the day, she was directed to a person who was “team lead.” She complained to the team lead who apologized to Petitioner. After speaking to the team lead, Petitioner then returned to the deli department and asked one of the deli associates, Jeanne Thornton, to identify the other deli associate. Ms. Thornton identified the other associate as “Trish.” Petitioner again left the deli area. At the time of this incident, Ms. Thornton and Trish were the only two Wal-Mart associates were working at the deli counter. Petitioner acknowledges that the deli appeared to be short-staffed, as she typically sees three or four associates working behind the deli counter. Several minutes later, Petitioner returned to the deli counter and requested service. Prior to this time, Petitioner waited for service, which was not forthcoming, but did not verbally request service. Ms. Thornton then waited on Petitioner, who left the deli area after she was given the food items she requested. Ms. Thornton noticed that Petitioner was angry and upset. The deli counter in question is at least 30 feet long. The deli contains both a cold food section and a hot food section. In addition, there is a lower shelf where items are for sale, which do not require the assistance of deli associates. On any given day, associates are assigned to work in either the hot or cold food sections. At the time Petitioner approached the deli counter, Trish was assigned to the deli’s hot food section, and Ms. Thornton was in the midst of filling a large cold food order. When a deli associate is assigned to cook food in the deli department’s hot food section, it is that person’s responsibility to perform duties related to the hot food. According to Ms. Thornton, “when the food comes up, it has to be temped, logged, and put in the hot bar.” These duties of an associate assigned to the hot food section of the deli take priority over helping customers. If the hot food is not properly temped, logged, and put in the hot bar, the hot food must be thrown away. On those occasions when the numbering system is not working, the deli associates rely on customers to tell them who should be waited on next. This is, in part, because the associates often turn their backs to the customers at the deli counter while they are cutting meat, etc. Food items sold from the deli counter are not intended for on-site consumption. Petitioner did not intend to consume the items purchased from the deli on the premises of Wal-Mart. No employee of Respondent made any racially derogatory or racially related comments to Petitioner. Other than Petitioner’s firm belief that she was overlooked in favor of Caucasian customers, no evidence was presented that the actions of Respondent’s associates were racially motivated.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered that dismisses Petitioner's claim of public accommodation discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Barbara J. Staros 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 19th day of November, 2008.
The Issue Did the Respondent commit an act of discrimination in refusing the Petitioner public accommodations at its motel?
Findings Of Fact The Red Carpet Inn is a motel located at 5331 University Boulevard in Jacksonville, Florida. Located adjacent to and in front of the property is a topless bar, which is unaffiliated with the motel. The proximity of this bar to the hotel created significant problems for the motel's management because many of the dancers and others working at the bar rented rooms at the hotel. Because of the coming and goings of dancers late into the night and early morning; entertainment of non- guests by dancers; and suspect drug use and sales on and about the premises, the hotel employed an active security detail. The Petitioner, a black female, resided at the hotel in Room 509 for several weeks immediately prior to May 6, 2004. She paid for her room on a nightly basis. Her room rent was frequently paid by persons other than herself. She was observed going from the bar to her room at late hours, and was thought to possibly be working at the bar as a dancer by motel security staff. She was observed visiting with other residents of the hotel at various times including late at night. The staff and manager received complaints from other residents about a person who was identified as the Petitioner. These complaints included, but were not limited to, noise, frequent visitors, and visiting with other guests late at night. As a result of these reports and his concerns about activities in the motel that disturbed other guests and were possibly illegal, the manager decided to refuse the Petitioner further accommodations at the hotel. Clarence Jones, a minister and friend of the Petitioner's family, testified about his visits to the premises. He visited the Petitioner, whom he had known since she was born, to bring her food and money because she was not working. He observed persons who he described as pimps and prostitutes in the vicinity of the motel and bar, together with persons he described as drug pushers. He paid for the Petitioner's room on occasion. Jones and members of the Petitioner's family visited her at the motel, but with the exception of Jones, these visits were during the day. Their testimony indicated that the Petitioner was a good person. The Petitioner testified. She was counseled by Kay Cannon, a black room clerk, to watch the number of calls she made and be careful of her activities because of management's concerns. According to the Petitioner, another desk clerk, Ursula Brooks, used a racial epithet when talking with the Petitioner. Brooks testified, and denied using any racial epithets to anyone, including the Petitioner. The manager and others testified about other residents of the motel who were described as Hispanic and African- American.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its final order dismissing the Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 25th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Dione Riley 3875 South San Pablo Avenue, No. 1208 Jacksonville, Florida 32224 Subhash Gandhi Red Carpet Inn 5331 University Boulevard, West Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
