The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints in these consolidated cases and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
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 Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for enforcement of the Florida Food Safety Act, Chapter 500, Florida Statutes. Handy 89 is located at 14531 North Cleveland Avenue, North Fort Myers, in Lee County. Since June 2002, Handy 89 has been operating a food establishment without a food permit from the Department. The Department does not inspect or approve septic systems at food establishments. Rather, the Department seeks certification that the food establishment has obtained approval from the local health authority or, in the case of large scale systems, from the Department of Environmental Protection. In this case, the Lee County Department of Health was the agency responsible for permitting the sewage system at Handy 89. Handy 89's owners applied to Lee County for a Certificate of Occupancy on May 20, 2002. Johanna Whalen, an environmental specialist with the Lee County Department of Health, coordinated with Handy 89 as to the steps required before the certificate could be issued. Ms. Whalen was familiar with the Handy 89 building because she drove past it every day on her way to work. She knew that the building had been closed to the public for more than one year and that it was serviced by a septic system. Ms. Whalen informed Handy 89 that when a septic system has been out of service for more than one year, it must be upgraded to meet current requirements for such systems. Handy 89 never applied for a construction permit to bring the septic system into full compliance. Klaus Kment is the Department sanitation and safety specialist responsible for inspecting the premises at Handy 89. On June 6, 2002, Mr. Kment authorized Handy 89 to operate as a food establishment. At the time, Mr. Kment was unaware of the problem with Handy 89's septic system. Mr. Kment testified that the Handy 89 building was located in a densely populated area, and he, therefore, assumed that the building was connected to city water and sewer service. Handy 89 opened for business in early June 2002. Ms. Whalen drove past the Handy 89 store and was surprised to see it opened for business. She contacted the Department's main office in Tallahassee, which relayed her concerns to Mr. Kment in Fort Myers. On June 17, 2002, Mr. Kment conducted an inspection of the Handy 89 premises and cited the facility for failure to have a sewage and wastewater disposal system approved by Lee County, and for failure to have a certified food manager. He assigned Handy 89 an overall rating of "poor." Mr. Kment conducted another inspection of the Handy 89 premises on July 2, 2002. He once again cited the facility for failure to have a sewage and wastewater disposal system approved by Lee County, and for failure to have a certified food manager, and again assigned it an overall rating of "poor." Mr. Kment's inspection report noted that Handy 89 "will need additional time to comply." Mr. Kment waited two months before conducting a third inspection, though he visited the store several times during the interim between inspections. On September 6, 2002, Mr. Kment conducted an inspection of the Handy 89 premises and cited the facility for failure to have a sewage and wastewater disposal system approved by Lee County and for failure to properly dispose of mop water. Mr. Kment noted that he had visited Handy 89 numerous times, but no progress had been made in obtaining a permit for the sewage system. By the time of the September 6, 2002, inspection, Mr. Norman Lippman of Handy 89 had become certified as a food manager, correcting that repeated violation. Nonetheless, Mr. Kment assigned Handy 89 an overall rating of "poor." By letter dated September 9, 2002, the Department denied Handy 89's application for a food permit based on its failure to obtain a satisfactory sanitation inspection rating. However, Handy 89 continued to operate and to sell products for which a food permit is required, such as dairy products and meat. The Handy 89 store contained more than 12 linear feet of shelving for these food products. On September 23, 2002, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Handy 89, citing the repeated violation for the sewage system, as well as the violations for improper disposal of mop water and failure to have a certified food manager. The Department proposed to settle the complaint for payment of $900.00 and the correction of all violations within 21 days of receipt of the Administrative Complaint. This is the Administrative Complaint at issue in DOAH Case No. 03-0535. On October 17, 2002, Mr. Kment conducted an inspection of the Handy 89 premises and cited the facility for failure to have a sewage and wastewater disposal system approved by Lee County. Mr. Kment also noted the presence of live insect infestation in some self-rising flour on the store shelves. Handy 89 voluntarily destroyed the flour. Due to the failure to make progress on the sewage system, Mr. Kment again assigned Handy 89 an overall inspection rating of "poor." On November 21, 2002, Mr. Kment conducted an inspection of the Handy 89 premises and cited the facility for failure to have a sewage and wastewater disposal system approved by Lee County. He noted that the owner was not present, and that no documentation was left on the premises to indicate any action on the sewage system. Mr. Kment assigned Handy 89 an overall inspection rating of "poor." On December 5, 2002, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Handy 89, citing the repeated violation for the sewage system, as well as the violation for insect infestation. The Department proposed to settle the complaint for payment of $750.00 and the correction of all violations within 21 days of receipt of the administrative complaint. This is the Administrative Complaint at issue in DOAH Case No. 03-0536. Dr. John Fruin, the chief of the Division of Food Safety, testified that the Department cannot give Handy 89 a food permit unless it has an approved septic system and that the Department is without authority to waive that requirement. Handy 89 offered no testimony or documentary evidence to dispute the Department's case that its sewage system was not permitted by Lee County.
Recommendation Based on all the evidence of record, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding that Handy 89 committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints; ordering Handy 89 to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 within 15 days of receipt of the final order, and ordering that a closed-for-operation sign be prominently posted on Handy 89's food establishment until such time as Handy 89 has obtained a food permit pursuant to Chapter 500. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S _____ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Norman Lippman Handy 89 Sunoco 14531 North Cleveland Avenue North Fort Myers, Florida 33903 John McCarthy, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Phil Reis 1470 Route 46 East Ledgewood, New Jersey 07825 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact The hearing proceeded and testimony was taken from Dr. Pillot, Mr. Bayard, and Mr. Brown regarding the composition and organization of the classified non-instructional employees of the school system. There are approximately 900 employees in the county's classified service who are all potential members of the employer group. This total number will be reduced because of lack of funds. Column A below shows the breakdown of employees by general job classification; Column B shows the number of employees after reductions are made. All figures taken from Exhibit 2. A B Secretarial/Clerical 174 167 Food Service 157 157 Custodial/Delivery 200 159 Maintenance 75 67 Teachers' Aides 12 1/ Data Processing 12 12 Transportation 93 2/ 93 There are 716 employees in the aforestated classifications. Approximately 525 employees would be encompassed in the group sought by the Petitioner. The clericals, teachers' adies, and data processing personnel total 191 employees. The Intervenor seeks to represent all 716, however, a unit composed solely of clericals would represent roughly 27 percent of the total. The figures used above are not adjusted for employees who are managerial, confidential, or "supervisory". ORGANIZATION The complete and detailed organization of the school system is set out in Exhibit 20, however, the system is generally organized as follows: | SCHOOL BOARD | | | | |Superintendent | | Superintendent | | | | | | Staff's | | | | | | | | Associate | | Director | | Associate | |Superintendent | | Data | | Superintendent | | Business | | Processing | | Instruction | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Director | |Director | |Director | |Coord.| |Coord.| |School | |Transpor-| |Facilit- | | Finance | | Food | |Purch-| |Prin- | | tation | | ies | | | | Serv.| | asing| | cipals| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Bus | | Food | | Head | |Teachers'| |Clerical| |Drivers| |Service| |Custodian| | Aides | | Staff | | | |Manager| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The system is basically broken into two portions, one dealing directly with educational services and the other with support services. The Data Processing Unit reports directly to the superintendent and performs work for both education and support. The support services branch contains the staff directors and administration for transportation, maintenance, food services, finance and purchasing. However, bus drivers from transportation, custodians from facilities, and food service employees are under the direction, directly or indirectly, of the principal of the school to which they are assigned. Principals are also responsible for the supervision, directly or indirectly, of the clerical staff and teachers' aides assigned to their school. JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AND DUTIES Secretarial and clerical personnel are found throughout the school system's organization, at various levels of the administrative staff and at the schools. On the staff they perform regular office clerical duties and at schools they perform bookkeeping, secretarial, maintain records of registration and attendance, and operate switchboards. There were at the time of hearing 174 such positions, however, a reduction of 8 secretarial positions in the central office was programmed. Note the stipulation by the parties and the positions expressed by the parties concerning exclusion of various secretarial positions at p. 398, Vol. II of Transcript. In brief this would exclude the superintendent's two secretaries, the secretaries of the two associate superintendents and the assistant superintendents. There were differences of opinion regarding whether the secretaries to the principals should be excluded. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Brown, who is a principal, it would appear that the duties of the principal's secretary are not clerical. According to his testimony, his secretary is solely in charge of specific administrative functions such as athletic ticket sales, registration and eligibility of athletes, etc. It would appear that she has broad powers and discretion in performing these tasks under the general supervision of the principal. Based on his testimony, a principal's secretary is more than a typist, and performs the functions of am administrative assistant to the principal administering specific programs under his direction. DATA PROCESSING There are 12 Data Processing employees. They perform various functions directly relating to the programming, operation, and analysis of the data processing function. The unit is under the control of a director, however, he reports to the superintendent as opposed to the associate superintendent for Business. Although the parties generally would exclude the other directors as managerial, they did not expressly agree to the exclusion of the director of Data Processing. The Hearing Officer cannot see any substantial difference in function which would warrant treating this position differently from the other directors. Because he reports directly to the superintendent, he actually holds a higher position in the system than other directors. The Data Processing Unit is located at the central office. TRANSPORTATION The Transportation Division is a part of the business branch, and is physically located adjacent to the central office. This division is responsible for school bus transportation and employs 116 drivers of which 93 are employed by tie system solely as drivers. There are 23 drivers who are also employed in some alternate capacity by the school system. The division is responsible for route planning and driver assignments. Drivers work approximately five hours a day and may be assigned two to three routes for different schools. However, while driving a particular route they are responsible to the principal of that school. In that respect the principal has effective powers of discipline through the Director of Transportation. In the director's office there are am assistant director, route coordinator, and assistant route coordinator for south county. There was mention of a chief mechanic who assigned work on the buses, however, there was no testimony relative to a mechanical section although the superintendent indicated that school system employees did perform the maintenance. P. 72, Vol. I. FACILITIES DEPARTMENT This is the largest department having approximately 250 employees. The department consists of the Planning, Inspection, Maintenance, Signal Repair, and Custodial Sections. The Planning Section consists of an architect, who is excluded from the unit by the parties, and two draftsmen. The draftsmen have the necessary training or experience to perform engineering drafting. They were sought by Petitioner and Intervenor for inclusion in the proposed unit. The Inspection Section is actually one inspector who inspects all construction for compliance with specifications and applicable codes. The parties stipulated to his exclusion. The Signal Repair Section consists of the supervisor, who was excluded by stipulation, and 7-9 repairmen who worked on communications equipment, office machine repair, and audio visual equipment. The section is divided into signal and office machine and audio visual repair subsections. The repairmen are not interchanged between the subsections. MAINTENANCE SECTION This section has the most complex organization and varied functions. It is supervised by the supervisor of maintenance. It is divided into three subsections: mechanical, structural and south county. Each subsection is under the direction of a supervising foreman. All of the aforementioned positions are excluded by stipulation of the parties. Mechanical Subsection has 15-18 employees who work in one of the three trade arena found in the subsection: plumbing, electrical and air conditioning. Each trade area has a working foreman. A locksmith, who is a skilled worker, is normally assigned to carpentry. Grounds, which was formerly a separate section, is now a subsection and the working foreman in charge of grounds does the work formerly done by the supervising foreman of grounds, and the same job performed by the other supervising foremen but he receives a lower salary rate. The Petitioner and Intervenor would not stipulate to his exclusion. There are 8-10 skilled and semiskilled workers in grounds. There are no specific job titles in grounds. The South County Section employs 8-10 persons. This is a separate suborganization with one administrative secretary. There are no working foremen. The employees represent the various skills found in the headquarters sections, performing all maintenance functions on school facilities in South Sarasota County. The shop facility is supervised by the shop foremen who supervises 3-4 skilled and semiskilled employees who work on automobiles, welding, and steel fabrication. There are 5-6 school mechanics who perform general repairs and are on the Facilities Division payroll but who rotate around to the various schools and work directly for the principals. They are assigned duties by and report to the principal of the school at which they are working. These employees have carpentry backgrounds. CUSTODIAL SECTION This section is comprised of supervisor, who is excluded by stipulation by the parties, 6-7 roving custodians, and about 175 custodians who are assigned directly to one of the 28 county schools. At each school, the head custodian supervises the custodians assigned at that school. The head custodian receives a higher salary. Although the head custodian does assign work, has the authority to effectively recommend discipline, and evaluates those under him, he also performs custodial functions. The Petitioner and Intervenor would both include the head custodians within the proposed unit. TEACHERS' AIDES Teachers' aides dare not sides to teachers in the truest sense, but perform various duties as assigned by the principal of the school to which they are assigned. These duties may range from clerical to library assistants to hall and bus monitors. They are rated by the principals for whom they work. These positions are apparently funded for a school term and the number authorized may vary; however, a principal may also elect to convert teacher positions into teacher aide positions in order to obtain a greater total number of positions. The number of teacher aides is dependent, therefore, in part on how much money is available for such positions and how many positions are converted by principals. There were no usable estimates of how many teacher aides would be employed in 1975-76. However, since the school year has begun at this time, this would be a valid area for staff inquiry to supplement the record. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE The Central Administrative Office of the school system is composed of the following sections or offices and personnel: Superintendent's Office Superintendent 2 Secretaries 2 Associate Superintendents 2 Secretaries Personnel Office Coordinator of Personnel Assistant Coordinator 5 Secretaries Coordinator of Planning Coordinator Secretary Federal Project Coordinator Coordinator Secretary Vocational Adult Education Assistant Superintendent Secretaries Evaluations Coordinator Coordinator Secretary Test Control Clerk Pupil Services Coordinator Coordinator Secretary 4-5 Clerks Media Coordinator Audio Visual Supervisor Clerks Book Processing Department 6 Clerks Although those functional organizations differ somewhat from those depicted in Exhibit 20, they are included to indicate primarily the distribution and functions of clerical personnel within the central office. It should be noted that all of the proposed reductions in clerical staff were to occur at the central office, where 8 positions were to be eliminated. The parties would exclude nonclassified employees which would exclude the various coordinators. FOOD SERVICE Food Service Coordinator This is a staff position within the superintendent's office staff which consists of the coordinator and assistants who are charged with coordination of purchasing and bookkeeping. The coordinator has no direct control supervision over food service personnel who work at schools. At each school there is a food service manager and in some instances, an assistant manager, whose duties are to supervise the food program at that school. The manager is responsible for the financial management, assignment of duties, and has effective disciplinary control of the food service workers at the school. The assistant manager has essentially the same duties when the manager is not present. Because there are several schools without kitchens, food must he brought in for students. These are satellite operations, and have a satellite manager whose duties are similar but not as complex as a manager's duties because there are no cooking facilities. The Petitioner would exclude all three of the foregoing positions, while the Intervenor would include these positions. The School Board has no position regarding these positions. It would appear from the authority vested in the managers that they are solely responsible for the program at their school but report to the principal. The assistant managers and satellite managers have essentially the same duties, authority, and functions. The food service workers work directly for tie food service manager and either cook or prepare food, serve food, or clean up the food preparation and service areas of the cafeteria. They are assisted to 50150 degree by custodial personnel in cleaning duties. There ore approximately 157 food service workers. FINANCE DIVISION Coordinator or Director is responsible for the internal audit functions. He is assisted by several bookkeepers. In addition there is the manger of investments, the payroll office and several special project bookkeepers. PURCHASING DIVISION The coordinator or director of Purchasing is responsible for ordering and warehousing equipment, materials, and supplies for the school system. He is assisted by an assistant who is a working foreman, 3-4 secretary-bookkeepers, a warehouse manager, and several warehousemen. COMMUNITY OF INTEREST In addition to the organization of the school system and the duties of the various personnel discussed above, the following factors also bear on the community of interest of the employees. Clearly all the full time appointed classified employees have the same fringe benefits regarding holidays, retirement, insurance, sick and annual leave. All salaries are established by the same procedure, starting with a study by the staff, a proposal from the superintendent's office to the School Board, and concluding with board amendment, if necessary, and final approval. The five salary schedules in effect are all keyed to a base of the basic instructional salary. Some employees are paid more and some less than starting teachers but that salary range is the base from which non-instructional salaries are developed. Separate salary schedules exist for secretarial-clerical, supervisory, maintenance, custodial, and data processing personnel. The hours worked by various personnel differ. Secretarial-clerical and data processing personnel work 371/2 hours per week, while all other personnel work 40 hours per week. All members of classified service have the same basic right of employment regarding grievances and appeals of personnel action. This report respectfully submitted this 22nd day of January, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated and retaliated against Petitioner because of her disability, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act; and, if so, the relief to which Petitioner is entitled. More specifically, the issues raised in this case are: (1) whether Respondent refused to accommodate Petitioner’s disability; and (2) whether Petitioner should be exempt from mandatory meal plan payments as a reasonable accommodation for her Crohn’s disease.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Deborah Fielding, resides in Trinity Towers South (TTS), located at 615 East New Haven Avenue in Melbourne, Florida. Respondent, POAH, owns and operates low-income senior housing programs authorized and regulated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). POAH operates these housing projects around the state, including TTS, Trinity Towers East, and Trinity Towers West. TTS, Trinity Towers East, and Trinity Towers West operate as separate housing projects. Each has a separate manager, separate application process, and separate waiting lists. TTS is made up of 162 units. Each unit has a kitchen with refrigerator and stove-top, but no oven. There is a common dining hall where residents are served meals through a mandatory meal plan. Trinity Towers East and Trinity Towers West do not have the mandatory meal plan. TTS has operated as a low-income housing community that includes a mandatory meal plan since prior to 1987.2/ Participation in the meal plan is required by all TTS residents in order to live and receive a housing subsidy at TTS. The Mandatory Meal Program and payments are regulated by HUD guidelines, and the meals prepared by TTS must comply with state guidelines for food preparation and health standards. Prior to moving into TTS, Petitioner executed an acknowledgment form that she understood the meal plan was mandatory to live at TTS. That form states: Mandatory Meal Program: Trinity Towers South has a Mandatory Meal Program. Lunch is served 7 days a week in our dining room. Every day you receive soup, salad, choice of entrée, a starch, and a choice of vegetable, choice of fruit or dessert and drinks for $5.00 per day. This is a mandatory program, participation is a requirement to live and receive subsidy at this community. Please take this into consideration before applying. On May 16, 2016, Petitioner signed a lease which included an addendum titled “Meals Agreement.” That agreement states in relevant part: A Resident may be exempt from the program for reasons such as outside employment that requires absence from the project during the time period that the meals are served, absence from the project for one or more weeks for hospital care, temporary nursing home care, or vacation. Resident is required to provide advance notice of at least 7 days, except for hospital emergencies. Exemptions will be granted for a medical conditions [sic] that requires a special diet. If the Resident requires a special diet, management will either provide a special diet or grant an exemption upon receipt of a written request from the Resident, and verification from the physician and the Resident requires a special diet for medical reasons and description of the special diet. The required forms for this accommodation are available at the management office. Any exemptions will be approved only after review by the Regional Property Supervisor of the community. (emphasis added). POAH has not exempted any resident from the mandatory meal plan, although they have credited residents who have missed more than seven days because of hospitalization. Approximately a year before she applied to live at TTS, Petitioner was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, a digestive disorder that causes abdominal pain, severe diarrhea, fatigue, and weight loss. Prior to moving into TTS, Petitioner had been hospitalized 22 times. To control her Crohn’s disease, Petitioner must keep a food diary documenting everything she eats and must know exactly what ingredients are in all the food she is eating. The longer she has had the disease and kept track of her food intake, the more aware she has become of what foods and food combinations “trigger” a Crohn’s attack. She also has found that some foods may cause symptoms on certain days, but not on others depending on variations in brands or timing. Petitioner convincingly testified that eating food prepared by TTS exacerbated her diagnosed condition and caused her to be so ill she was hospitalized. In the two months after moving into TTS and eating in the dining hall, Petitioner was hospitalized twice for symptoms related to her Crohn’s disease. In September 2016, Petitioner asked to be exempt from the mandatory meal program and to not be required to pay the $5 a day fee. She submitted to TTS an undated note from her treating physician, Dr. John C. Turse, M.D., which indicated she “needs to be on a special diet. Please exempt her from the food program at your facility. Please call my office with any questions.” The doctor did not describe the special diet or provide a list of foods Petitioner could eat. On September 19, 2016, the TTS Property Manager denied Petitioner’s request to be exempt from the meal plan, but offered instead a willingness to work with Petitioner to provide her with a special diet of foods that were acceptable to her. Subsequently, TTS staff met with Petitioner and eventually Petitioner submitted a list of foods she could eat. Based on this list the TTS Executive Chef created a menu for the week of September 26 through October 2, 2016, consisting of items that were on that list of acceptable foods that Petitioner had submitted. There was no evidence Petitioner got sick from eating the special diet TTS had prepared. Nonetheless, Petitioner found the meals inedible, unappealing, and unappetizing. Although she tried the special meals for two days, she did not eat the specially prepared meals for the rest of the week. Since then, she has not eaten in the TTS dining hall and has prepared her own meals. Petitioner has not been hospitalized for a Crohn’s attack for the past two years since she stopped eating in the TTS dining hall. Eventually, Petitioner stopped paying her monthly meal plan payments. Petitioner has not paid because it is a financial hardship for her to pay the monthly meal plan amounts and pay for her groceries. Not all residents of TTS utilize the mandatory meal plan every day. Those who do skip a meal, however, are not exempt from paying the $5 a day meal plan fee. Petitioner appealed TTS’s denial of her request for an exemption from the meal plan to POAH. As a result, POAH set up a meeting with Petitioner in March 2017. After that meeting TTS requested that Petitioner meet with their newly hired Executive Chef, Lisa Walsh. Petitioner testified that she did not want to meet with Ms. Walsh because she had already met with Ms. Walsh, who told her she would not have time to make special meals for her. Ms. Walsh’s testimony was that she did not recall ever talking to Petitioner, but that she had discussed with TTS management that they could offer Petitioner an ingredient list of all prepared meals, and work with Petitioner to ensure Petitioner’s meals only contained the items that Petitioner has listed as acceptable. Ms. Walsh explained the dining hall and meal plan offerings had changed since Petitioner originally moved to TTS. After being hired, Ms. Walsh changed the dining hall from a cafeteria style to a sit-down, restaurant-type dining experience, where the residents pay with meal tickets. The dining experience was also changed so that residents were given a number of options that varied every day, and regular items that were available every day. Ms. Walsh’s unrefuted testimony was that she prepares special diets for other residents based on their dietary needs. For example, her staff makes separate coleslaw for one of the residents that cannot or will not eat a certain seasoning found in the regular batch of coleslaw. Ms. Walsh testified TTS has been willing and is still willing to meet with Petitioner on a regular basis to come up with food items she can eat. Based on the demeanor of the witnesses and the documentation provided, the undersigned finds that Ms. Walsh and POAH staff did offer to work with Petitioner to create a special diet based on the information provided by Petitioner at the time. Subsequent to meeting with Respondent and the Commission investigators regarding her appeal, Dr. Turse provided Petitioner two notes, which she never provided to POAH or TTS.3/ In those notes, Dr. Turse reiterated that Petitioner requires a strict diet and added for the first time more detail. Petitioner has followed that diet strictly for the last 2 years and that has kept her from having flares, which has kept her out of the hospital. . . . It is in my medical opinion that she should prepare her own meals as she knows the exact ingredients that are used to cook her food and will not end up eating any food or foods that may contain any ingredients that will cause her to have a Crohn’s flare. This is consistent with the unrefuted testimony provided by Petitioner regarding her hospitalization history, the detailed journaling of her food intake, and preparation of her own meals.
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, Preservation of Affordable Housing, LLC, did not commit a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner, Deborah Fielding. If Petitioner has resubmitted or resubmits her request with the physician verification she now has, it should be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 February, 2019.
