The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in a discriminatory housing practice, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2008),1 by revoking an accommodation which allowed Petitioner to have a support dog in his condominium on the alleged ground that the support dog presents a health hazard for Petitioner’s neighboring condominium resident.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a resident owner of a condominium in Embassy House Condominiums (Embassy House). Embassy House is a covered, multifamily dwelling unit within the meaning of Subsection 760.22(2). Petitioner’s condominium is a dwelling defined in Subsection 760.22(4). Respondent is the entity responsible for implementing the rules and regulations of the condominium association. Relevant rules and regulations prohibit residents from keeping dogs in their condominiums. Sometime after July 17, 2008, Respondent granted Petitioner’s written request to keep a support dog in his condominium as an accommodation based on Petitioner’s handicap. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner is a handicapped person within the meaning of Subsection 760.22(7). Petitioner’s handicap includes cancer and depression. After Respondent granted permission for Petitioner to keep a support dog in his condominium, Petitioner purchased a small dog that weighs less than 15 pounds. Respondent now proposes to revoke permission for Petitioner to keep the support dog. The sole grounds for the proposed revocation is that the female resident of the condominium adjacent to Petitioner’s, identified in the record as Ms. Madeline O’Connell, allegedly is allergic to pet dander. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the support dog presents a health hazard to Ms. O’Connell. Neither Ms. O’Connell nor her physician, who is not identified in the record, testified. The admitted “sole basis” of Respondent’s position is a note from an unidentified, alleged physician that Respondent did not submit for admission into evidence. Respondent identified the note through the testimony of a lay witness, but never submitted the note for admission into evidence. The lay witness for Respondent identified the note as the note provided to him by Ms. O’Connell. The remainder of the testimony of the lay witness consists of statements by Ms. O’Connell to the lay witness concerning the alleged allergy of Ms. O’Connell. If the evidence were to show that Ms. O’Connell is allergic to pet dander, the support dog is a breed that does not have dander. The support dog is hypoallergenic. If the evidence were to show that the support dog were not hypoallergenic, adequate measures have been implemented to protect Ms. O’Connell from any threat to her health. The air conditioning vents that feed cool air from Petitioner’s condominium into the common lobby for the two condominium units have been sealed. The interior of the condominium units are cooled by separate air conditioning units. The trier of fact finds the paucity of testimony concerning the alleged health hazard to Ms. O’Connell to be less than credible and persuasive. Ms. O’Connell makes no effort to protect herself from exposure to the support dog. On at least three occasions, Ms. O’Connell voluntarily exposed herself to the support dog to make confrontational comments to Petitioner about the support dog.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order upholding the Petition for Relief and dismissing the proposed revocation of the accommodation for Petitioner to keep a support dog in his condominium. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 25th day of June, 2009.
The Issue The issues presented here concern two administrative complaint letters filed by Petitioner against Respondent. Both complaint letters are dated March 26, 1982. The initial charges contain allegations concerning records keeping by Respondent related to patients and staff, and employee training, per Chapter 10A, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. The second prosecution letter alleges that one of the owners of the Respondent corporation acted as legal guardian for a resident in Respondent's facility, contrary to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES Petitioner presented two witnesses, Orey William Crippen, II, Adult Congregate Living Facility Licensing Office, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, District IV, and Charles H. Carter, Supervisor of Licensure and Certification, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, District IV. Petitioner offered ten exhibits which were admitted. Respondent presented Lynn Costner, co-owner of Lynn's Care Center, Inc. Respondent's four exhibits were admitted.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Lynn and Ronny Costner were the owners of Lynn's Care Center, Inc., Respondent. In the relevant time sequence, that corporation operated through its co-owners. The business of Lynn's involved Adult Congregate Living Facilities, Phase II, by license issued by Petitioner in accordance with Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. One of the facilities was located at 1562 Garden Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida. The second facility was located at 1529 Ridge Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida. On January 25, 1982, the Garden Avenue facility was inspected by Orey William Crippen, II, a facility inspector for Petitioner. The purpose of the inspection was to monitor Respondent's compliance with regulatory provisions set forth in Chapter 10A, Florida Administrative Code, which was enacted to effectuate the purposes of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Crippen's inspection revealed that required documentation to demonstrate that facility residents Schofield and Thomaszewski had been examined by a physician or nurse practitioner to certify acceptability of their health status to reside in the center was not available in the facility at the time of the inspection. The information that was necessary would have had to demonstrate medical examination of the residents within thirty days of admission to the facility. Schofield had been admitted into the facility on November 30, 1981, and Thomaszewski had been admitted to the facility on November 6, 1981. In Schofield's case, there was no date of X-ray or examination shown in his file. Required medical information on the patient Thomaszewski was not available at the facility. Crippen also spoke with the co-owner Lynn Costner on January 25, 1982, to ascertain the whereabouts of the aforementioned medical information for the patients Schofield and Thomaszewski. This inquiry took place in the central office of Respondent at 73 West Granada Avenue, Ormond Beach, Florida. Although Schofield and Thomaszewski had been admitted to the hospital with medical examination information, this information was not available at the central office on the inspection date. Effective March 31, 1981, the necessary medical information was replaced by employees of the Respondent and the Schofield and Thomaszewski files were complete on the subject of the necessary documentation of health status. This replacement entailed the updating of material related to Thomaszewski, in that the medical examination information that accompanied him at the time of his admission to the facility was not current. While at the facility on January 25, 1982, Crippen was unable to find requisite information to establish that two persons working in the facility on the inspection day were free from communicable diseases. Nor was he provided necessary documentation demonstrating a negative tuberculosis test, via chest X- ray or physician statement certifying no tuberculosis, or information dealing with these employees related to communicable diseases detectable by skin tests. The employees were Judy Russell and Rick Costner, son of the owners of the facility. Again, Crippen's conversation with Lynn Costner in her Ormond Beach office on the date of inspection did not lead to the production of the necessary information to demonstrate that Judy Russell and Rick Costner were free from communicable diseases. Judy Russell and Rick Costner were no longer employed by Respondent on March 31, 1982. The facility did not have an employee on duty at the time of the January 25, 1982, inspection who was certified in an approved course in first- aid, which would include cardiopulmonary resuscitation, training in bleeding and seizure control or training in antidotes for poisons. By March 31, 1982, certain employees of Respondent had achieved first-aid training. Crippen's January 25, 1982, inspection did not uncover an employment application for Judy Russell or Rick Costner, either at the Garden Avenue facility or Respondent's office in Ormond Beach, Florida. Finally, Crippen's January 25, 1982, inspection did not reveal a signed contract between the residents Bateman and Thomaszewski and the facility at Garden Avenue. Bateman had been admitted to the facility on November 26, 1981. Those contracts were not made available by Lynn Costner when Crippen spoke to her in the Respondent's Ormond Beach office on the date of the inspection. The patients had entered the facility with contracts. Mrs. Bateman's contract had been signed by her nephew and Thomaszewski's contract had been signed by a relative. The missing contract problem was subsequently rectified, effective March 31, 1982, through efforts of employees of Respondent. On January 29, 1982, Charles H. Carter, Licensure and Certification Supervisor for District IV, wrote to Lynn and Ronny Costner, owners of Lynn's Care Center, and attached a deficiency statement document to that correspondence. A copy of the letter and deficiency statement may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The purpose of the letter and statement was to allow Respondent to offer corrections by written indication of steps to be taken to resolve problems discovered in the course of Crippen's inspection and the deficiency document contained a column for offering written corrections. It afforded the Respondent through February 15, 1982, to satisfy the problem related to employment applications for Judy Russell and Rick Costner. Respondent was allowed, until March 1, 1982, to correct all other violations alluded to in these findings, with the exception of the first-aid certification. On the subject of first-aid certification, Respondent was given through March 31, 1982, to verify certification. All corrections which were made related to allegations spoken to in the administrative complaint and reported in these facts date from March 31, 1982, and notification of those corrections in writing was received by Petitioner on April 5, 1982. The statement of corrections was reported on the deficiencies and corrections form mailed on January 29, 1982. Corrections were not verified by Petitioner. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. The corrections were made subsequent to an exit conference on January 25, 1982, held between Crippen and Lynn Costner in Respondent's Ormond Beach Office in which Costner was made aware of the related problems. With the exception of the matter related to first-aid, the written notification of corrections was not timely. By the letter of transmittal of the statement of deficiencies, Carter had advised Respondent that the failure to submit the plan of corrections within the time specified would lead to a finding of noncompliance by Respondent and the possibility of administrative fine. On March 5, 1982, not having heard from Respondent on the topic of the March 1, 1982, deadline for certain corrections, Carter again wrote the Costners, as owners of Lynn's Care Center at Garden Avenue, requesting that the response by statement of corrections be made no later than March 18, 1982. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, which is a copy of the Carter correspondence. There being no reply to the March 5, 1982 correspondence, an administrative complaint letter was forwarded to Respondent, in the person of the Costners, Lynn's Care Center, at 1562 Garden Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida. This item was sent certified mail, return receipt requested. It set forth violations related to the deficiencies which have been discussed in this Recommended Order. The complaint was received by an employee of Respondent on April 2, 1982. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 Respondent disputed the factual allegations in the complaint and a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing was conducted to resolve the dispute. On March 26, 1982, a second administrative complaint letter was served on the Costners reference a resident in their facility at 1529 Ridge Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida. That complaint was received on April 2, 1982, as shown by the certified mail return receipt request form. The administrative complaint and certified mail return receipt docket may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10, admitted into evidence, a copy of the complaint and receipt item. The complaint letter charged that Ronny Costner had acted as the legal guardian of Margaret Wells, a resident in the Ridge Avenue facility, and in doing so violated Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. On January 19, 1982, letters of guardianship of the property of Margaret Wells had been presented to Ronny Costner, through action in the Circuit Court in and for Volusia County, Florida. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, a copy of the order issuing letters of guardianship. On March 8, 1982, Charles Carter wrote to inquire of Ronny Costner on the subject of whether Costner was indeed the legal guardian of the property and suggested the impropriety of such guardianship. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, which is a copy of the Carter correspondence. Resident Wells had been admitted to the Ridge Avenue facility upon referral by Dr. John Hall, D.O. At the time of admission, the Costners were unable to find family to serve as Wells' guardian. Wells was suffering from Organic Brain Syndrome. Following examination by two physicians and with the assistance of Patty Butcka, an Adult Caseworker with Petitioner, and her husband, serving as legal counsel, petition was made leading to the guardianship appointment of Ronny Costner for the benefit of Wells. During the time that he served as legal guardian he received no compensation. The guardianship of Wells was in view of the fact that no close relatives resided in the area where Wells was living. At the guardianship hearing no family member appeared or objected to the appointment of Costner as guardian. Following receipt of the March 8, 1982, letter from Carter, Costner employed counsel and petitioned the court to remove him as guardian for Margaret Wells, in view of the provision of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, which would not allow Costner to act as guardian of a resident in his Adult Congregate Living Facility. An order was entered removing Costner as Wells' guardian and Ronny Costner no longer served in that capacity at the time of the final hearing in this cause.
The Issue Did Respondents, Richman Property Service, Inc. (Richman Property); Joe Lambert; Mira Verde Limited Partnership (Mira Verde); and RMS GP, LLC; discriminate against Petitioners, Sergio Trujillo-Gonzalez and Mariella Trujillo-Gonzalez, in the sale or rental of housing on account of a handicap? Did Respondents, Richman Property; Joe Lambert; Mira Verde; and RMS GP, LLC, discriminate against Petitioners, Sergio Trujillo-Gonzalez and Mariella Trujillo-Gonzalez, in the sale or rental of housing on account of national origin?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez is handicapped. He routinely uses an electric wheelchair to move about. Due to his disability, he needs assistance and accommodation in moving about, including a ramp and "grab bars" in the bathroom. Richman Property and Mira Verde hold ownership interest in the Mira Verde apartments. Mr. Lambert is their manager for the property. There is no evidence establishing any relationship of RMS GP, LLC, with Mr. Lambert, Mira Verde Apartments, or the events described in this Order. From March 31, 2018, forward, Mr. Lambert, Richman Property, and Mira Verde were aware that Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez was disabled and needed these accommodations. When asked about Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez's patently obvious disability, Mr. Lambert prevaricated in his answer. Asked if Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez used a wheel chair, Mr. Lambert replied, "I've seen him with an electric chair. I have seen him walking with a walker or a stick. I have seen him drive his Hummer. I have seen him walking without any assistance." (T-143) This evasiveness, along with the differences in demeanor of Mr. Lambert and Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez, caused the undersigned to find Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez more credible and persuasive when testimony of the two witnesses differed. In addition Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez's willing admission of harmful facts enhanced his credibility. For these reasons, Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez's testimony about requesting a modified apartment is accepted as more credible than Mr. Lambert's statements that Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez never requested a modified apartment. Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez is of Cuban descent. At all times material to this case, Mr. Lambert, Richman Property, and Mira Verde were aware of this. On March 31, 2018, Mr. and Mrs. Trujillo-Gonzalez entered into a Florida Tax Credit Lease Agreement with Richman Property and Mira Verde for a Mira Verde apartment. The apartment complex is part of a Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. The maximum allowable apartment rent is based on the area's median income published annually by HUD. The majority of the apartments rent for 60 percent of the allowable rent. A minority of them rent to qualified tenants at 35 percent of the allowable rent. A goodly amount of evidence was directed to the Trujillo-Gonzalez's efforts to obtain a 35 percent apartment and Mira Verde's responses. There are no findings of fact on this subject because there is no evidence that difficulties or delays obtaining a lower rent apartment were due to Mr. Trujillo- Gonzalez's handicap or the Trujillo-Gonzalez's national origin. Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez acknowledged there was no national origin discrimination in his testimony. He was asked, "Do you have any evidence with you here today that Mr. Lambert, the property manager, treats Cubans differently than other Hispanic tenants?" Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez responded, "He mistreats everybody." (T-75) Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez was asked, "And you don't have any evidence with you today to show residents who were non-Cubans were treated any differently, meaning you don't have a witness here today to show that they were – that non-Cubans were treated any differently than you?" He answered, "No. No." (T-75) The 14-page lease agreement between the Trujillo- Gonzalezes, Richman Property, and Mira Verde addresses a multitude of matters. They include security deposits, subletting, late payments, tenant utility responsibilities, the landlord's right to enter the premises without notice, tenant responsibility for clean carpets, waiver of landlord responsibility for criminal activity on the premises, pet prohibitions, waivers of claims for mold or mildew injury, tenant responsibility to report fire extinguisher malfunctions, prohibitions against all weapons including BB guns and paintball guns, restrictions on installation of satellite dishes, and curfews. The agreement does not contain a single word about when or how to request an accommodation for a handicap. On August 8, 2017, the tenant in Apartment 95 vacated the apartment. Apartment 95 had been modified to accommodate handicapped residents. Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez asked Mr. Lambert to lease that apartment to him as an accommodation for his handicap. Mr. Lambert did not grant the request. The tenant who moved did not have a handicap. (T-21) There is no credible, persuasive evidence that allowing the Trujillo-Gonzalezes to rent that apartment was not reasonable. Instead of granting the request, Mr. Lambert gave Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez a form to complete. The form only provided for requesting physical modifications to an apartment. The form also stated that the tenant understood and agreed that he was responsible for all costs for the modifications. A few days later Mr. Lambert gave Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez an estimate for the installation of "four handicap bars." The cost was $795.00. The Trujillo-Gonzalezes could not afford this and told Mr. Lambert so. Since they could not afford to pay for the modifications, Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez did not complete the form. Apartment 95 stood vacant for two months. (T-21) In November of 2017, Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez asked Mr. Lambert to rent him apartment number 134. This apartment had been modified to accommodate tenants with handicaps. Mr. Lambert did not grant the request and indicated that the apartment was involved in a court proceeding. Yet Mr. Lambert rented the apartment to someone else in January 2018. There is no credible, persuasive evidence that allowing the Trujillo-Gonzalezes to rent that apartment was not reasonable. In late March or early April of 2018, Mr. Lambert told Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez he would rent him the next vacant apartment modified to accommodate a handicap. He did not do this. In June of 2018, Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez told Mr. Lambert that if Mr. Lambert would not rent him a modified apartment, then Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez needed a shower, grab bars for the bath, and a wheelchair ramp for his apartment. On June 13, 2018, Mr. Lambert again provided the form described in Finding of Fact 13. Mr. and Mrs. Trujillo-Gonzalez filed their complaint with HUD on July 18, 2018. The complaint stated that June 11, 2018, was the most recent date of discrimination and that the discrimination was continuing. The complaint did not state that June 11, 2018, was the first or the only date of discrimination. In July and August of 2018, Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez provided Mr. Lambert letters from Alvarez Gonzalez Gemayaret, M.D., of the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, stating that Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez needed home modifications for his handicaps. The July 11, 2018, letter stated his needs included a ramp and a modified bathroom. The August 21, 2018, letter provided more detail. It stated: Mr. Trujillo is an established patient of the UHealth Institute for Advanced Pain Management and he is being treated for his chronic Right sided pain in his RU and RLE subsequent to subcortical ischemic stroke. Mr. Trujillo requires electric wheelchair to assist his mobility which is impaired because of the hemiplegia and RLE pain. Patient also has certain needs related to his stroke and disability and will greatly benefit from certain home improvements such as a ramp at the entrance to his house, as well as necessary rails in his house and bathroom, which will facilitate his daily activities. On August 7, 2018, Mr. Lambert contacted the Trujillo-Gonzalezes about completing an application for the transfer to a 35 percent lease that the Trujillo-Gonzalezes had been seeking. Mrs. Trujillo-Gonzalez refused to speak to him. Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez stated that he would not participate further in the process until the Commission had completed its complaint review. (R. Ex. 16). Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez testified: "I told him that I was going to wait for the commission investigation to finish. See, because that was the advice that they gave me, to wait for the investigation to be concluded." (T-72) Nonetheless, Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez continued to communicate about obtaining a modified apartment. Mr. Lambert says that because of this exchange, he did not communicate further with the Trujillo-Gonzalezes about changing apartments to obtain a 35 percent lease or to obtain a modified apartment. This was not reasonable in light of Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez's subsequent communications about obtaining a modified apartment. The tenant in Apartment 106 vacated the apartment on October 31, 2018. Apartment 106 was modified to accommodate handicapped tenants. Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez asked Mr. Lambert to lease him that apartment. Mr. Lambert did not grant the request. (T-39-41). There is no credible, persuasive evidence that allowing the Trujillo-Gonzalezes to rent that apartment was not reasonable. November 30, 2018, Apartment 85 became available. It was modified to accommodate handicapped residents. Mr. Lambert did not offer it to the Trujillo-Gonzalezes. Instead, he rented it to another family. There is no credible, persuasive evidence that allowing the Trujillo-Gonzalezes to rent that apartment was not reasonable. Apartment 20 is modified to accommodate handicapped residents. The tenants vacated the apartment on December 31, 2018. Mr. Lambert did not offer it to the Trujillo-Gonzalezes. There is no credible, persuasive evidence that allowing the Trujillo-Gonzalezes to rent that apartment was not reasonable. Renting an already modified apartment to Mr. and Mrs. Trujillo-Gonzalez was a reasonable, cost-free accommodation for Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez's handicap. Starting August 8, 2017, the Trujillo-Gonzalezes repeatedly requested this accommodation. Mr. Lambert, Richman Property, and Mira Verde never granted this reasonable request. Renting Mr. and Mrs. Trujillo-Gonzalez an apartment with bathroom grab bars and a wheel chair ramp within 30 days of the effective date of this order is reasonable affirmative relief providing a reasonable accommodation for Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez's handicap. Modifying the apartment by installing grab bars in all bathrooms and installing a wheelchair ramp within 30 days of the effective date of this order is alternative, reasonable affirmative relief providing a reasonable accommodation for Mr. Trujillo-Gonzalez's handicap.
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 that: Dismisses the Petition against Respondent, RMS GP, LLC; Prohibits Respondents, Richman Property Services, Inc.; Joe Lambert; and Mira Verde Limited Partnership from refusing to provided reasonable accommodations to handicapped tenants. Requires that within 30 days of the Commission's order becoming final that Respondents, Richman Property Services, Inc.; Joe Lambert; and Mira Verde Limited Partnership; either: Lease the Trujillo-Gonzalezes an apartment with existing modifications that at least include bathroom grab bars and a wheel chair ramp, or Modify the Trujillo-Gonzalez's existing apartment, at Respondents' expense, by installing at least grab bars in each bathroom and a wheelchair ramp. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 15th day of January, 2020.
The Issue Whether Petitioner (“Doris Gibbs” or “Ms. Gibbs”) was the subject of discriminatory housing practices in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, part II, Florida Statutes (2017).1/
Findings Of Fact The Housing Authority is responsible for 440 public housing units. The Annie May Spells apartment complex (“the Spells community”) is one of the communities under the auspices of the Authority. It consists of 36 units, and four are “ADA compliant” in that they have showers with grab bars and alarms in the bathrooms and bedrooms that can be activated in emergencies. In order to be a resident of the Spells community, one must be at least 55 years old. Many of the residents utilize walkers or wheelchairs. The Housing Authority has a nondiscrimination policy stating that: The Housing Authority shall not discriminate because of race, color, sex, religion, familial status (in non-elderly designated housing), disability, handicap or national origin in the leasing, rental, or other disposition of housing or related facilities. As set forth in its lease, the Housing Authority agrees to repair and maintain the dwelling units, equipment, appliances, and the common areas. The residents agree to keep the grounds in a safe and sanitary condition. Also, the residents acknowledge that the Housing Authority has zero tolerance for any violent criminal activity that threatens other residents, guests, visitors, or employees of the Housing Authority. Such actions will result in termination of a lease and eviction. Ms. Gibbs was 61 years old when she filed a pre- application for public housing with the Housing Authority. While she did not disclose any disabilities on the pre- application, Ms. Gibbs asserts that she receives supplemental security income and social security disability insurance. As for why she receives such payments, Ms. Gibbs states that she suffers from severe depression, anxiety, and problems with her neck and back. Also, Ms. Gibbs uses a walker on a daily basis. The Housing Authority notified Ms. Gibbs via a letter dated July 25, 2016, that her pre-application had been approved and that she had been put on the waiting list for consideration to be placed in public housing. Ms. Gibbs submitted additional documentation to the Housing Authority pertaining to her preferences, and there was no indication she had any disabilities. Ms. Gibbs and her husband entered into a lease with the Housing Authority that took effect on January 18, 2017, and they moved into unit 104 of the Spells community.2/ On October 18, 2017, Ms. Gibbs returned home from a trip to Michigan and found mold and/or mildew in her apartment. Ms. Gibbs claims to be allergic to mold and reported this problem in person to someone working the front desk of the Spells community’s management office. Cleveland Hobbs, the Director of Maintenance for the Housing Authority, overheard the conversation and told Ms. Gibbs that she would not have a problem with mold and mildew if she kept her apartment clean. Ms. Gibbs was deeply offended by that comment because she and Mr. Hobbs had no prior acquaintance. From this point forward, Ms. Gibbs and Mr. Hobbs had a contentious relationship. The Housing Authority responded to Ms. Gibbs’ complaint on October 24, 2017. The corresponding work order notes that mildew was cleaned from the washer and dryer, and that the ceiling and walls were sprayed with bleach. Nevertheless, Ms. Gibbs was not satisfied with the cleaning efforts, and her dissatisfaction remained a sharp point of contention until she left the Spells community. While addressing the mold/mildew issue on October 24, 2017, maintenance personnel notified Ms. Gibbs that she needed to remove non-patio furniture from the front of her apartment, and Ms. Gibbs ultimately disposed of the furniture. Approximately one week later, the Housing Authority told Ms. Gibbs to remove various items such as a grill, bicycles, and lawnmowers from her back porch. On April 5, 2018, Ms. Gibbs received written notification from the Housing Authority that she faced termination of her lease if she failed to remove a trailer from the premises within seven days. The trailer in question was approximately four feet by eight feet and used for carrying cargo. Ms. Gibbs removed the trailer. Ms. Gibbs believes that the forced removals were retaliation for her complaining about the mold and/or mildew in her unit. On May 30, 2018, Ms. Gibbs was visiting a grocery store in close proximity to the Spells community and was allowed to borrow a shopping cart so that she could transport groceries to her apartment. The Housing Authority allows residents to bring shopping carts onto the premises, but they must be returned. Ms. Gibbs left the cart on her front porch with the intention of returning it the next day. Mr. Hobbs arrived at Ms. Gibbs apartment the next morning and told her that shopping carts were not allowed on the premises. Ms. Gibbs then asked Mr. Hobbs to enter her apartment and examine the work that had been done to address her complaints about the mold and/or mildew. She also wanted to bring his attention to a roach problem in her apartment. Upon entering the apartment, Mr. Hobbs’ attention was drawn to the stove where burners had been removed, leaving wires exposed. He also observed that air conditioning vents had been removed. Ms. Gibbs was very upset that Mr. Hobbs was not paying attention to the problems she asked him to examine and demanded that he leave her apartment. After leaving the unit, Mr. Hobbs called the police to report that Ms. Gibbs had shoved him as he was leaving her apartment. After conferring with Mr. Hobbs, the officer who arrived on the scene moved to arrest Ms. Gibbs, but Mr. Hobbs notified the officer that he did not want to press charges. Nevertheless, this incident led to the Housing Authority notifying Ms. Gibbs via a letter dated May 31, 2018, that she had violated her lease by shoving Mr. Hobbs. The letter stated the following: On May 31, 2018 Management has received information that you did in fact shove a PHA employee in the back, Mr. Hobbs, out of your dwelling unit, after you did not agree with unauthorized conditions in the unit in which you reside being pointed out to you. Your action against a PHA employee is in direct violation of the dwelling lease . . . and therefore this agency moves to terminate your lease. On July 10, 2018, the Housing Authority provided notice that it was terminating the lease, and Ms. Hobbs left the Spells community.3/ Ultimate Findings Regarding Ms. Gibbs’ Allegations Ms. Gibbs was unsatisfied with the Housing Authority’s efforts to remove mold and/or mildew from her apartment. The parties do not dispute that Ms. Gibbs was told to remove non- patio furniture, a trailer, a shopping cart, and various other items from the outside of her apartment. Ms. Gibbs asserts that those directives were in retaliation for her complaining about mold and/or mildew. There was no persuasive evidence demonstrating that the Housing Authority’s actions or indifference toward Ms. Gibbs were motivated by Ms. Gibbs’ physical or mental condition. In other words, there was no persuasive evidence indicating that residents with no perceptible disabilities received more favorable treatment from the Housing Authority.
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 Doris Gibbs’ Petition for Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. CHISENHALL 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 30th day of September, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent has unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her disabilities in connection with her rental of an apartment, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, section 760.23(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner suffers from bipolar disorder, surgically repaired spinal injuries, and a cardiac condition requiring a pacemaker, as well as unspecified environmental allergies. Petitioner thus has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities and has a record of having, or is regarded as having, such physical or mental impairment. At all material times, Respondent has managed Cutler Meadows, which is a Section 8 housing community that is part of the Housing Choice Voucher Program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Cutler Meadows is a complex of three three-story buildings comprising 225 apartments: 36 two-bedroom units and 189 one-bedroom units. A maintenance person resides in one of the two-bedroom apartments, so only 35 two-bedroom apartments are available for rent. These units are popular and infrequently become available for rent. By application dated September 5, 2000, Petitioner applied for a one-bedroom apartment at Cutler Meadows. Her application disclosed that Petitioner was disabled. Respondent approved the application, and, in November 2000, Petitioner moved into unit A-108, which is a ground-floor, one-bedroom unit. At the same time, Petitioner's disabled son moved into his own one-bedroom apartment on the third floor of the same building. In March 2010, Petitioner asked to be moved either to a one-bedroom apartment on the third floor or a two-bedroom apartment. Petitioner submitted a physician's note stating that she required a higher floor due to her allergies. A subsequent physician's note asserted that Petitioner's grandson needed to live with her to assist with her activities of daily living. Although her reported medical needs would seem to have required a two-bedroom unit on the third floor, by asking for a unit that satisfied either of these conditions, Petitioner appears to have been content with a higher one-bedroom unit or a lower two-bedroom unit. Prior to Respondent's reassigning Petitioner to another unit, on January 5, 2011, Petitioner's grandson, who had moved in with Petitioner, knifed his father, Petitioner's son, who, as noted above, resided at Cutler Meadows. Respondent commenced a short-lived eviction proceeding against Petitioner, but agreed to drop the matter if the grandson moved out and was not allowed to visit the complex. A couple of weeks after reaching the settlement with Respondent, Petitioner filed an application seeking, again, a two-bedroom unit or a one-bedroom unit on a higher floor. Shortly after filing this application, Petitioner learned that unit A-316, which was vacant, was about to be furnished with new appliances. Petitioner asked to be assigned this apartment, and, two days later, Respondent assigned this apartment to Petitioner. On October 21, 2013, Petitioner requested a two-bedroom apartment. Respondent has a written policy for the assignment of apartments. For the relatively scarce two-bedroom units, Respondent maintains two waiting lists: one for persons with medical needs justifying a two-bedroom unit and one for all other persons. As long as anyone is on the medical-needs waiting list, no one on the other list is assigned a two-bedroom unit. In this case, Respondent implemented its written policy. On receipt of Petitioner's application, Respondent placed her on the medical-needs waiting list, which had four persons ahead of her. Petitioner has failed to prove that any of these persons was not disabled. As each two-bedroom apartment became available, Respondent assigned it to the person at the top of the medical-needs waiting list. When Petitioner reached the top of the list, she received the next available two-bedroom unit, which, in fact, took place in March 2016 when Respondent assigned her a two-bedroom apartment, unit A-224, and Petitioner moved into the apartment. When asked, Petitioner could not say how Respondent discriminated against her on the basis of any of her disabilities. The crux of her case seems to turn on one or two misconceptions. Petitioner complained that a two-bedroom apartment was vacant because its tenant resided in southwest Florida, but she clearly lacked sufficient understanding of the facts of that transaction to establish any wrongdoing on Respondent's part. Petitioner seems to think that other persons, besides the four ahead of her on the medical-needs waiting list, obtained two-bedroom units before she did, but Petitioner has no evidence to support this opinion, which appears to be incorrect. Petitioner badly undermined her own judgment when she complained, at an earlier time, when Respondent assigned a higher one-bedroom apartment to someone whose home had burned, rather than to her. In sum, Petitioner has provided no direct evidence of discrimination, nor any basis whatsoever for an inference of discrimination. Petitioner has failed to provide any evidence even suggestive of unfair treatment of her by Respondent.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed on March 22, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Robert E. Meale 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 21st day of April, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Ann Hervas Apartment A224 11280 Southwest 196th Street Miami, Florida 33157 Andrew L. Rodman, Esquire Jon K. Stage, Esquire Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff and Sitterson, P.A. 150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33130 (eServed) Kara S. Nickel, Esquire Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff and Sitterson, P.A. 150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33130 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents' foster home license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Respondents have been licensed by Petitioner to operate a foster home since August 1994. At all times material hereto, Mercedes and Topacio Hernandez were foster children who resided in Respondents' home. Mercedes was born on October 3, 1986, and Topacio was born on August 31, 1988. On March 1, 1996, Darlise Baron, a protective investigator for Petitioner, picked up Mercedes and Topacio from school and took them home. When she picked them up, they and their clothes were dirty. When they arrived at Respondents' home, Baron allowed the girls to play outside in the dirt while she waited for a Spanish-speaking police officer to arrive to assist her with her investigation. After Baron and the police officer entered Respondents' home, Baron inspected the kitchen area. The refrigerator contained "hardly any food", and the cabinets contained only a "couple of cans of vegetables." Respondent Ana Diaz explained to Baron that the girls received their breakfasts and lunches at school and the family had their evening meals catered. Baron noted that Mercedes was "average weight" and Topacio was "small for her weight". It is assumed from Baron's description that Topacio was overweight. Baron noticed a slide lock on the outside of the girls' bedroom door. The lock was the type where one merely raises the knob and slides the lock over. The lock was not a "dead bolt" lock. What Baron did not notice was that there were such slide locks on the outside of all the bedroom doors in Respondents' home. The purpose of the locks was to prevent Respondents' granddaughter from entering any of the bedrooms unattended. That toddler was the child of Respondents' daughter who also resided with Respondents. Baron determined that Mercedes and Topacio were not in immediate danger. She determined that the children did not need to be removed from Respondents' home. On March 4, 1996, Brenda Boston, a foster care unit supervisor for Petitioner, visited Respondents' home. She checked the sheets on the girls' bed: the top sheet was clean but the bottom sheet was soiled. In her view, the girls' bedroom was untidy because there were some packed boxes in the room. Boston checked the refrigerator and found it empty but there was a box of food in the freezer. The cupboards were also empty. Respondent Ana Diaz explained that their food was catered and showed Boston containers of warm food on the kitchen counter. There were no snacks available for the girls at that time. While Boston was there, she observed the interaction among Mercedes, Topacio, and Respondents and found it to be good. She determined that the foster children were not in any immediate danger and left them in Respondents' home. Lee C. Hickey is a social worker who has been the case manager for Mercedes and Topacio since December 1995. She sees the girls on a weekly basis, at home, at school, or in therapy. She has observed the interaction among them and the other students and the interaction among them and Respondent Ana Diaz and has found those interactions to be positive. Although she testified that there were no books in the Diaz foster home for the girls to read, she did not testify as to when that situation occurred and for how long that situation continued to exist. She did testify, however, that Topacio was in the second grade at the time and could not read. On March 26, 1996, Carol Rodriguez, a counselor employed by Petitioner, visited the Diaz foster home. She observed the children's room to be neat. Although she noticed the slide lock on the bedroom door, she did not question its presence. During that visit, Respondent Ana Diaz indicated that she was not happy with the Department and wanted Mercedes and Topacio removed from the home. On March 29, 1996, Rodriguez spoke with Respondent Ana Diaz who told her that Petitioner needed to remove the children from the Diaz home that day because Respondent Alejandro Diaz needed surgery on an emergency basis and they were leaving for Columbia the next day. Respondents did not lock Mercedes or Topacio in their bedroom for punishment, did not require them to clean the house in order to eat, did not keep them from eating meals as a family, and did not hit or threaten them. The children missed several therapy appointments when Respondent Ana Diaz was unable to transport them to therapy. They did receive therapy, however, on February 14, 1996, two days after their father died following a terminal illness.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents not guilty and dismissing the charges filed against them. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northwest Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Arthur Spiegel, Esquire 1800 Northwest Seventh Street Miami, Florida 33125 Richard Doran General Counsel 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Two, Room 204-X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's request for exemption for disqualification should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Upon completion of high school, J.D. was employed at Walt Disney World in the theme park. It was during her employment at Disney World that J.D. was arrested on April 13, 1990 and charged with possession of a baggie containing 1.5 grams of crack cocaine with intent to sell. J.D. pled nolo contendere to the charges and was placed on two-years probation during which she had to attend a drug treatment program. Having already completed high school, J.D. started going to school while on probation and while she was employed with Red Lobster as a cook and coordinator at night. J.D. held the job with Red Lobster from 1990 to 1993, when she relocated to Jacksonville, Florida. J.D. attended classes at the Orlando Vocational-Technical Center and was awarded a certificate for 56 hours of home health aide in March 1991 and an AIDS four-hour seminar. On March 13, 1992, J.D. was awarded a certificate for completion of care of the Alzheimers client; and on March 17, 1992, J.D. was awarded a certificate of completion of care for the stroke patient. J.D. also successfully completed the basic rescue course in CPR from the American Heart Association issued on March 21, 1992 and March 24, 1992; First Aid, Level 1 from the National Safety Council Orlando Vocational Tech on March 12, 1992; and satisfactorily completed on March 27, 1991 a 72-hour course for the home health aide with competency performance testing. By letter of February 1, 1992, J.D. was informed that she had successfully completed her substance abuse counseling with a discharge diagnosis of cocaine abuse in remission, prognosis fair, provided she follows recommendations; and the recommendations were (1) abstain from all mood-altering substances and (2) attend AA/NA meetings. On May 16, 1994, J.D. was arrested by the Orlando Police Department for possession of cannabis. On June 6, 1994, J.D. appeared before the court, waived her right to counsel, pled nolo contendere to the charge of possession, and was adjudged guilty. As stated above, J.D. relocated to Jacksonville, and a year later was hired on June 1, 1995, as a home health care aide by Living Centers Devcon Point West Cluster, a developmental services facility. J.D. worked with clients who were in need of assistance in their daily living activities, ranging in age from minors to adults. J.D.'s cared for eight clients who were physically disabled and unable to care for themselves. J.D. worked a shift from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m.; and her specific job duties included bathing, feeding, lifting clients from their beds and chairs, and assisting with toiletries, such as combing hair. J.D. received letters of support from her supervisors and co-workers. Mercedes Joyner, Program Supervisor, found J.D. to be a superb worker who demonstrated herself to be a loving, caring, sincere, and motivated individual, who has carried out all of her duties as a responsible person and conducted herself in a professional and respectful manner toward her co-workers and superiors. Sue Fleischmann, Facility Coordinator, found J.D. to be punctual, responsible, considerate and caring with the Developmentally Disabled Clients, and who worked well with her co-workers. Patricia Welch, a co-worker, found J.D. to be a reliable and compassionate person with whom it was outstanding to work. On October 17, 1995, the Petitioner completed a substance abuse course sponsored by Northeast Florida Safety Council, Inc.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be granted the exemption. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of February, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: J.D. (address of record) Roger L. D. Williams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Sandy Coulter, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
