The Issue The issue is this case is whether the Respondent, Beacon Hill, Ltd., discriminated against Yvonne Malone (Petitioner) based on her religion in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (the Act).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a resident at an apartment complex owned and operated by the Respondent. At the hearing, the Petitioner recited a litany of complaints related to her apartment unit and to the services she has received from the Respondent's staff. Although the Petitioner has previously asserted that the Respondent has discriminated against her based on her religion, the Petitioner testified at the hearing that she had been "harassed" and "abused" by the Respondent's employees and that she did not know the basis for her treatment. The evidence failed to establish that the Respondent, or any person employed by the Respondent, has discriminated against the Petitioner based on her religion. The evidence failed to establish that the Respondent, or any person employed by the Respondent, has treated the Petitioner any differently than any other resident of the apartment complex has been treated. The evidence failed to establish that the Respondent, or any person employed by the Respondent, has "harassed" or "abused" the Petitioner in any manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Yvonne Malone. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of housing discrimination against Respondent based on her race and disabilities, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20-760.37, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is African-American, although the record fails to disclose any physical or mental disability. Due to her pending eviction at an apartment complex known as the Tennis Club in Fort Lauderdale, Petitioner visited the Venice Cove apartment complex, also in Fort Lauderdale, in the summer of 2002. Deciding that she liked Venice Cove, Petitioner applied for a one bedroom apartment on September 16, 2002. In accordance with its customary practice, Respondent obtained a credit report and learned that Petitioner owed a utility payment, possibly a cable television box. Respondent advised Petitioner that she would have to satisfy this debt to rent an apartment, and Petitioner did so. At some point, Petitioner decided that she wanted a two bedroom/two bathroom apartment, and Respondent tentatively assigned her a unit of this type, pending final approval of her application to lease. Petitioner changed her preferences for type of apartment several times. Respondent was able to accommodate immediately all but one of these preferences. In early December, Petitioner mentioned to Respondent's representative that she was being evicted from the Tennis Club. This is the first time that Petitioner disclosed any eviction to Respondent. Examining the file, Respondent's representative realized that she had failed to order the more thorough credit report that Respondent had been using since November 2002. This report would reveal evictions, among other things. Respondent's representative ordered the more thorough credit report, which revealed that Respondent had been evicted three times. Respondent's policy precluded renting to a person with this rental history, and Respondent's representative promptly informed Petitioner that she was denying Petitioner's application. There is no evidence whatsoever that Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the basis of Petitioner's race or any disability from which she may suffer.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Housing Discrimination Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2004, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elvira Williams 1515 Northwest 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Kristine A. Sawyers Law Offices of Lowenhaupt & Sawyers 7765 Southwest 87th Avenue Suite 201 Miami, Florida 33173
The Issue Whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioner, Sudhir Kotecha, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (FHA), chapter 760, part II, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the appropriate penalty; and whether Petitioner Sudhir Kotecha participated in the instant proceeding for an improper purpose, and, if so, whether the undersigned should recommend an award of attorney’s fees and costs to Respondents pursuant to section 120.595.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Westminster Services, Inc., owns and operates several retirement communities across Florida. The Westminster property in this matter is Respondent, Westminster Asbury/Asbury Arms, which is located in Cocoa, Florida. Mr. Downs is the administrator for Westminster’s Cocoa site, and manages its facilities. Mr. Kotecha is currently, and during the time period relevant to this matter was, a resident of Asbury Arms North, a residential complex within the Westminster Asbury/Asbury Arms residential community. Within the Asbury Arms North residential complex is a resident-operated thrift store, which Respondents do not operate or control, and a Florida Room, which is a common area with a table, vending machines, and other items. Mr. Kotecha entered into a Lease Agreement with Asbury Arms, Inc., d/b/a Westminster Asbury South, on June 6, 2016. The Lease Agreement was for a term of one year, and allowed for successive terms of one year “unless automatically terminated as permitted by paragraph 23 of this Agreement.” Paragraph 23 of the Lease Agreement provides for “Termination of Tenancy.” Mr. Kotecha was born in India, has brown skin, and immigrated from India to the United States. He became a United States Citizen in 2010. 2018 Rocking Chair Incident In July 2018, a maelstrom arose after Mr. Kotecha took a rocking chair from the Florida Room of Asbury Arms North to his apartment, and then returned it to the Florida Room the next day. According to Mr. Kotecha, residents leave various items in the Florida Room that are “free” for other residents to take. He also testified that the thrift store sometimes places items that are too large for its sales room in the Florida Room with price tags, but that if a price tag is not on the item, it is considered to be “free” as well. Mr. Kotecha testified that he noticed the rocking chair in the Florida Room in July 2018, with no price tag, and decided to take it. After deciding that it did not fit well in his apartment, he returned it the next day. Mr. Downs testified that he was on vacation in nearby Indialantic during the time that Mr. Kotecha took the rocking chair. He stated that he received a call from the Cocoa Police Department requesting video of an unrelated purse snatching in a parking lot connected to the Westminster Asbury/Arbury Arms residential community, so he returned to his office to do so. The evidence presented at the final hearing showed that Respondents operate numerous cameras throughout the common areas of the Westminster Asbury/Asbury Arms residential community. While locating the purse snatching video to provide to the Cocoa Police Department, Mr. Downs also noticed a post-it note that asked him to determine who took the rocking chair, and when. Mr. Downs testified that he “burned” videos of the purse snatching and the taking of the rocking chair, to compact discs, left the compact discs at the front desk for the Cocoa Police Department, and returned to his vacation. Mr. Downs testified that he later learned that Denise Miles, who runs the resident-operated thrift store, had initially asked for video of who took the rocking chair, and that she had indicated that the Cocoa Police Department requested a copy of the video. The undersigned has viewed the video of Mr. Kotecha taking the rocking chair from the Florida Room in July 2018. The video shows Mr. Kotecha, by himself, in the Florida Room, sitting on his walker, opposite from the rocking chair. He takes several minutes to move over to the rocking chair, sits and rocks in it, and then decides to place it on top of his walker. He waits to exit the Florida Room, via an external exit to the parking lot, until one or two individuals (whose legs can be viewed through a row of windows, from the camera angle of the video) walk by the exit. He then wheels the rocking chair through the parking lot (as opposed to the interior entrance/exit), and, presumably, through another entrance to the building, and through a hall to the elevator. He parks the walker/rocking chair around the corner from an elevator, and then proceeds to summon the elevator. Once the doors open, he retrieves the walker/rocking chair from around the corner, places it on the elevator, and, ultimately, takes it to his apartment on an upper floor. Mr. Kotecha appears to take an overly-cautious, and circuitous, route to transport the rocking chair from the Florida Room to the hallway next to the elevator, and ensures that the rocking chair is not visible from the elevator (or anyone entering or exiting it) before he places it on the elevator. In August 2018, the Brevard County Sheriff’s office arrested Mr. Kotecha and charged him with burglary of a structure, and petit theft, related to the taking of the rocking chair. Mr. Downs testified that neither he, nor any agent of Respondents, filed a criminal complaint concerning Mr. Kotecha. However, when law enforcement initially arrived at Asbury Arms North to arrest Mr. Kotecha and, being unable to locate him, left, Mr. Downs subsequently called them back to inform them that Mr. Kotecha was at his apartment, which eventually led to his arrest. After Mr. Kotecha’s arrest, Mr. Downs testified that he sent staff members to his apartment to “make sure there’s no running water, make sure that the air conditioner’s set to the right temperature. And we do that for precautionary measures to protect our property and our … residents.” The staff members took numerous photographs of Mr. Kotecha’s apartment, which Mr. Downs described as “deplorable.” The undersigned has reviewed the photographs taken of Mr. Kotecha’s apartment. The photographs depict: a kitchen that has items piled up on every empty counter space, a refrigerator/freezer that appears over packed with various food items that would make it difficult for the door to close, a sink full of various food containers and at least one piece of fruit, and an oven with newspaper inside of it; a cluttered living room with items and trash, piled considerably; a bedroom with items piled on the bed and every available surface; various areas with extension cords and power strips that have multiple items plugged into them; a bathroom with trash piled up, and multiple partially-filled buckets near the toilet and inside the shower stall. Based on these photographs, the apartment appeared unsanitary, difficult to navigate, and, at least based on the paper in the oven, a fire hazard. Soon after Mr. Kotecha’s arrest, Mr. Downs contacted Mr. Kotecha’s sister, Ms. Thakkar, who he provided as an emergency contact to Respondents, to inform her of the arrest. Ms. Thakkar testified that Mr. Downs made numerous threatening and insensitive remarks related to Mr. Kotecha’s ethnicity and immigration status during this telephone call; Mr. Downs credibly denied making such remarks. Ms. Thakkar assisted with paying bond for Mr. Kotecha’s release from jail. Mr. Kotecha returned to his residence at Asbury Arms North after his arrest. He subsequently pleaded guilty to a lesser (misdemeanor) crime, paid a fine, and his adjudication was withheld. Notice of Termination of Lease Agreement and Complaint On October 9, 2018, Respondents delivered—by hand and regular mail—a letter, signed by Mr. Downs, that served as a 30-day notice to Mr. Kotecha that Respondents were terminating Mr. Kotecha’s lease, and that he needed to vacate his apartment by November 9, 2018. The October 9, 2018, letter further stated: Your Lease Agreement is being terminated pursuant to paragraph 8(b)(2) of the Lease Agreement. Paragraph 8(b)(2) allows Asbury Arms Inc. to terminate the Lease Agreement for your material noncompliance with the Lease Agreement. By signing the Lease Agreement you agreed to be bound by the Rental Lease Agreement and House Rules that are incorporated into the lease as well as the terms of the lease. Unsanitary health conditions of your apartment after being given multiple warnings that dates back to October 3, 2016 Storage of bicycles in apartment after numerous warnings not to do so Law enforcement activity including his arrest for burglary and theft Theft of personal property owned by someone other than himself Fire safety concerns by placing papers in oven Your actions, as outlined above, constitute continued lease violations. As such, Asbury Arms Inc. dba Westminster Asbury is forced to terminate your Lease Agreement. If you remain in the unit after the specified termination date of November 9, 2018, Asbury Arms Inc., dba Westminster Asbury may seek to enforce the termination of the Lease Agreement in court. You have ten (10) days in which to discuss the termination of your Lease Agreement with Westminster Asbury which begins the earlier of 1) the date the notice was hand delivered to the unit or 2) the day after this notice was mailed. Moreover, if a judicial proceeding for eviction is instituted you may present defenses, if any, therein. In November 2018, Asbury Arms, Inc., filed a Complaint for eviction in the County Court of Brevard County, Florida. In December 2018, Asbury Arms, Inc., filed an Amended Complaint for eviction. Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the final hearing, this amended complaint remains pending. Mr. Kotecha’s Account of the 2018 Rocking Chair Incident and Termination of Lease Agreement Mr. Kotecha testified that he saw the rocking chair in the Florida Room in July 2018, and as there was no price tag on it, he took it to his apartment. The next day, he decided that he did not have enough room in his apartment, and returned it to the Florida Room. He testified that within this 24-hour period, Denise Miles became worried that the rocking chair was missing, determined that Mr. Kotecha had taken it, called the police, and filed a criminal complaint. On cross-examination, when asked how he knew the rocking chair was free for the taking, Mr. Kotecha answered: Because it was lying in Florida room without any price tag of thrift store. And even if it is thrift store price or anything, thrift store is totally illegally so the ownership of Dee Miles is illegal, so the complaint is totally illegal. Everything is illegal. And I was put to jail also totally illegally. Despite a seeming acknowledgment that Denise Miles, and not Respondents, filed the criminal complaint that led to his 2018 arrest for the taking of the rocking chair, Mr. Kotecha later testified: Joseph Downs is mastermind. He is Supreme Boss. And because of that, every staff member is afraid of him and whatever he says – Joseph Down says, the staff has to do that. Even if he or she doesn’t like to do that. Joseph Downs inspired, not only inspired, but encouraged Dee Miles to write this – to call the police and write a complaint about the stealing of that chair. Q. How do you know that? * * * There is no authentic proof of it, but I believe strongly that. In support of Mr. Kotecha’s testimony, Mr. Kotecha presented the testimony of fellow resident Ms. Lynar, who offered numerous photographs that she took of the Florida Room which showed various items that were “for sale” with price tags. She also testified that it’s not always clear whether something is free, or whether it belongs to the thrift store, as it depends on whether “Dee and Don Miles [who operate the thrift store] want to take possession of it.” She testified that the rocking chair originally had a price tag of $35, but at some point, the price tag had been removed, which she believed meant that the rocking chair was free.3 In describing the day he was arrested, Mr. Kotecha again laid the blame with Mr. Downs, claiming he concocted the following story to lure him from to Asbury Arms North so that the Cocoa Police Department could arrest him: I got up in the morning and then I started to work to zone clean my apartment and then suddenly I remembered, oh I had to go to People’s Church for prayer and lunch. So I – I left the room – the apartment halfway of zoning, take shower and shave my face and went to Peoples Church for prayer and lunch. And then, when I went there, Joseph Downs totally, illegally lied to me that there are eight peoples – residents who will be given last one year’s rent back reimbursed and you will get – now, come 3 The undersigned notes that Ms. Lynar has filed previous housing discrimination complaints against Respondents, one of which was heard by the undersigned last year. First, she filed a charge of discrimination against Respondents in 2014, which was assigned DOAH Case No. 15-2796, which ultimately resolved between the parties. Then, in 2018, ALJ Bruce Culpepper conducted a two-day final evidentiary hearing in DOAH Case No. 18-1314, and issued a Recommended Order that concluded that Ms. Lynar failed to meet her burden of proving that Respondents committed a discriminatory housing practice in violation of the FHA, and recommended that FCHR dismiss Ms. Lynar’s Petition for Relief. On October 1, 2019, FCHR entered a Final Order that adopted ALJ Culpepper’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and dismissed Ms. Lynar’s Petition for Relief. See Lynar v. Westminster Ret. Communities Foundation, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1314 (Fla. DOAH July 10, 2019; FCHR Oct. 1, 2019). Then, in 2019, Ms. Lynar filed yet another charge of housing discrimination (retaliation), and the undersigned conducted a two-day final evidentiary hearing in DOAH Case No. 20-1080. The undersigned issued a Recommended Order that concluded that Ms. Lynar failed to meet her burden of proving that Respondents committed a discriminatory housing practice in violation of the FHA, and recommended that FCHR dismiss Ms. Lynar’s Petition for Relief. On March 31, 2021, FCHR entered a Final Order that adopted the undersigned ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and dismissed Ms. Lynar’s Petition for Relief. See Lynar v. Westminster Communities, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-1080 (Fla. DOAH Jan. 4, 2021; FCHR Mar. 31, 2021). At the time of the most recent Lynar final hearing, Ms. Lynar was also the subject of an eviction action by Respondents. The undersigned has considered Ms. Lynar’s adverse position to Respondents in these previous matters, as well as her lack of success in such matters, in assessing her credibility as a witness in this proceeding. in here, you will get – you will be getting free food every day or money for the food every day. It was totally made story by Joe Downs. Totally lying and the – by telling me this thing, he wanted me to wait in the reception area. He told me, can you wait here. I’m preparing your paper. You are the last eight – eight men – eight residents. And then he – he never prepared any paper, never took my sign and there was no benefits like this and – and he called BCSO. Brevard County Sheriff’s Office. And they came and they handcuffed me and take me to jail. And even I didn’t know why I – I have been taken to jail. On the way, I asked them – the police – the sheriff why I am taken to jail. Then he told me that, you entered in a prohibited area and you steal some – some furniture. That’s why. Mr. Kotecha testified that the morning of his arrest, he had started cleaning his apartment, but was interrupted by attending a religious service and, ultimately, his arrest. He explained that the multiple buckets in his bathroom (one of which contained a floating comb) were full of hot water for cleaning. He explained that the reason for newspaper in his oven was because he had no room at this dining table to eat that day; instead, he used the door to the oven as a makeshift tabletop, placing the paper underneath his food. As he was in a hurry to leave, he testified that he did not have time to remove the paper from the oven. He stated that the multiple items in the sink were actually soaking with water, which would make them easier to clean later on. Other Incidents Mentioned in Termination The October 9, 2018, letter that served as a 30-day notice of termination of Mr. Kotecha’s lease agreement referenced two additional reasons for the termination: (a) unsanitary health conditions of your apartment after being given multiple warnings that dates back to October 3, 2016; and (b) storage of bicycles in apartment after numerous warnings not to do so. With respect to the multiple warnings of unsanitary health conditions, Respondents introduced: (a) an October 3, 2016, Ten Day Notice of Non- Compliance with an Opportunity to Cure, which stated that Mr. Kotecha violated his Lease Agreement for “Health and safety violations. Specifically unsanitary health conditions and clutter which poses health and safety concerns….”; (b) a March 9, 2017, Ten Day Notice of Non-Compliance with an Opportunity to Cure, which stated Mr. Kotecha had violated his Lease Agreement for the same reasons stated in the October 3, 2016, Ten Day Notice; (c) a January 26, 2018, letter entitled “Hallway Carpet & Lease Violations,” which stated that the carpet in the hallway outside of his apartment will be cleaned by staff, as it is the property of Westminster Asbury, and stated that “Mr. Kotecha was placed on probation for any further material and or non-material violations of his rental lease agreement.”; and (d) a February 19, 2018, Ten Day Notice of Non-Compliance with an Opportunity to Cure, which stated that Mr. Kotecha had violated the “House Rules,” which are part of the Lease Agreement and which forbade the storage of bicycles in apartments, but in the designated bicycle parking area, and which further stated that Mr. Kotecha continued to store/chain his bicycles to stop signs or bus stop signs, as well as poles within the residential area. Mr. Downs stated that Respondents had issued multiple previous warnings to Mr. Kotecha concerning unsanitary health conditions in his apartment. Mr. Downs testified that Mr. Kotecha had damaged the carpet outside of his apartment and tried to clean it, which resulted in more damage, and for which Respondents charged Mr. Kotecha a $75 cleaning fee. Mr. Kotecha testified that Mr. Downs was “already biased against” him when Respondents issued the various notices of violation because Mr. Downs had warned Mr. Kotecha to stop taking multiple “free” loaves of bread that were occasionally left in the Florida Room for residents by some other organization, and generally denied that his apartment ever met the definition of being unsanitary. With respect to the carpet cleaning outside of his apartment, Mr. Kotecha testified that he was in the process of cleaning it, and questioned why Respondents charged him $75 to clean it if “it’s the job of Westminster Asbury.” With respect to the storage of bicycles, Mr. Downs stated that it involved an “issue of his chaining bicycles to light poles and different things around our property here[,]” which he considered a “final warning.” Mr. Kotecha testified that he locked his bikes to these poles because they were closer to the apartment building, and it was difficult for him to walk between the designated bicycle area and the apartment building. Mr. Kotecha testified that Mr. Downs accommodated Mr. Kotecha and allowed him to lock his bike on nearby poles; Mr. Downs denied doing such an accommodation, but admitted that Mr. Kotecha continues to lock his bike on nearby poles. Evidence of Other Residents Taking Property from Florida Room Mr. Kotecha attempted to introduce evidence of residents taking property that did not belong to them, and who did not receive termination notices from Respondents, to show that Mr. Kotecha was treated differently. Much of this type of evidence concerned residents taking other residents’ walkers. However, the recollection of these witnesses was less than clear. Ms. Furman (white female), a fellow resident of Asbury Arms North, could offer no recollection of walkers being taken from the Florida Room on August 24, 2019, even after being shown video purporting to establish this point. Similarly, fellow resident Mr. Miles (the husband of the thrift store operator Denise Miles, and a white male), testified, when shown a video from August 26, 2019, that he took a vacant walker from the Florida Room. Mr. Miles also testified that the thrift shop “loans out” walkers regularly, and places them for sale in the Florida Room, with price tags. Ms. Jeter (white female), another fellow resident, testified that, in August 2020, she asked Mr. Miles if she could purchase a walker from the thrift store, which was placed in the Florida Room along with another walker. Mr. Miles agreed, but also agreed that Ms. Jeter could take it with her and pay the thrift store later. Later that day, Ms. Jeter received a call from the front desk asking her to return the walker, as it belonged to someone else and was not for sale, which she did. Ms. Jeter was not arrested or prosecuted for stealing the walker, and Respondents did not terminate Ms. Jeter’s lease agreement because she mistakenly took a walker that she believed she could purchase from the thrift store. Ms. Butler (African American female) testified that in August 2020, she left her walker in the Florida Room, and when she returned, it was missing. She testified that she reported this to the front desk, and after checking the security camera in the Florida Room, determined who it was (Ms. Jeter), and returned it to Ms. Butler that same day. Ms. Butler did not report this incident to the police. Ms. Lynar (white female) testified that she kept a walker in the Florida Room, where it was “folded up” and placed next to the soda machine. She testified that in August 2019, it went missing, and that she testified that Denise Miles, Mr. Miles, and Ms. Furman took it. She testified that the walker was returned, but that Respondents’ maintenance staff subsequently took it, and it has not been returned. Mr. Tarasavage, a maintenance worker for Respondents, testified that he had no recollection of taking Ms. Lynar’s walker from the Florida Room and disposing of it. Mr. Tarasavage testified that he received no complaints, and was not arrested, for removing a walker from the Florida Room. Theft of Mr. Kotecha’s bike On September 26, 2020, another resident, Barbara Shillings (white female), allegedly took one of Mr. Kotecha’s bikes from the area where he normally parks his bike. Mr. Downs believed that Ms. Shillings was being “mischievous” in doing so. However, Mr. Kotecha complained about this incident to police officers, who were at Asbury Arms North to deal with a resident experiencing dementia issues. The police officers subsequently reviewed video of this incident, provided by Mr. Downs. Mr. Downs testified that in late January 2021, Ms. Shillings was charged criminally for the taking of Mr. Kotecha’s bicycle. Mr. Downs testified that this incident differed from Mr. Kotecha’s in that Ms. Shillings was not arrested and taken out of the building by police, and because her apartment was never in an unsanitary condition (although it had failed an annual inspection). Mr. Downs further testified that because he learned of the criminal charges some 75 days after the incident, he was unable to issue a notice of termination, as the 45-day window for initiating an eviction had expired. Mr. Downs also stated that Respondents are “waiting to see what the court’s going to do[]” in Ms. Shillings’s criminal case. Ultimate Finding of Fact Mr. Kotecha failed to provide any credible evidence that Respondents’ decision to issue the Notice of Termination, and subsequently commence eviction proceedings in county court, was discriminatory, in violation of the FHA. The undersigned has considered the testimony and credibility of Mr. Kotecha, who claimed that “everything is illegal” when asked about his taking of the rocking chair, that Mr. Downs is a “mastermind” and “supreme boss” who orchestrated his arrest, while admitting he had no proof, that he was “zone cleaning” an apartment that appeared to the undersigned to be unsanitary at the time of his arrest, and that Mr. Downs concocted a story of free rent to lure Mr. Kotecha out of his apartment and to a common area in Asbury Arms North to be arrested, as well as the supporting testimony of Ms. Lynar, who has brought numerous unsuccessful claims against Respondents under the FHA, in arriving at this finding. The undersigned has also considered Mr. Kotecha’s behavior in the video of him taking the rocking chair—in which he takes a route through the external parking area (but waits for people in the parking lot to leave before doing so), through a different entrance/exit to the elevator, where he leaves the rocking chair in an area of the hall so that individuals entering or exiting the elevator cannot see it. The undersigned has also considered the testimony and credibility of those witnesses who testified regarding Mr. Kotecha’s allegation that other similarly-situated tenants of other nationalities took items from the Florida Room or other areas that did not belong to them, and suffered no consequences from Respondents. However, two witnesses—Ms. Furman and Mr. Miles—had no recollection of an unlawful taking of a walker happening, even when shown videos of alleged incidents. The testimony of Ms. Jeter and Ms. Butler reveal a misunderstanding of whether a walker that belonged to Ms. Butler was actually the property of the thrift store. Additionally, the undersigned finds that walkers are commonplace in a retirement community such as Asbury Arms North, and as much of the testimony demonstrated that the walkers used in this community looked similar, if not identical, it is understandable that person in a community of senior citizens might mistakenly take another person’s walker. With respect to the late-introduced evidence concerning Ms. Shilling’s taking of Mr. Kotecha’s bike, the undersigned finds that much of the testimony offered on this subject is hearsay, which was not supported by any other documentary evidence, but was addressed by Mr. Downs. Mr. Downs testified that Ms. Shillings was not arrested and led out in handcuffs at Asbury Arms North, did not receive prior notices of termination for unsanitary conditions in her apartment (although she had been cited during annual inspections, which she corrected), and that her notice of criminal charges (which had not been resolved at the time of this hearing) came after Mr. Downs had the legal opportunity to commence eviction proceedings. Mr. Downs also testified that Respondents intended to await the outcome of her criminal matter before deciding any further action. Thus, Ms. Shillings is not a fair comparator. The undersigned also finds that, while Mr. Kotecha’s testimonial claims stretch the bounds of credulity, there was no evidence presented to demonstrate that his participation in this proceeding was primarily to harass, or to cause unnecessary delay, or for a frivolous purpose, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that: (a) the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Sudhir Kotecha’s Petition for Relief; and (b) deny Respondents’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees, filed February 5, 2021, pursuant to section 120.595, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 2021. Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Henry Keith Presbyterian Retirement Communities, Inc. d/b/a Westminster Towers 80 West Lucerne Circle Orlando, Florida 32801 Stephen G. Henderson, Esquire Henderson Legal Group 5419 Village Drive Viera, Florida 32955 Denise Miles 1200 Clearlake Road Cocoa, Florida 32922 Maria Vaeth Henderson, Esquire Henderson Legal Group 5419 Village Drive Viera, Florida 32955 Nicholas A. Vidoni, Esquire Vidoni Law PLLC 959 North Cocoa Boulevard, Unit 5 Cocoa, Florida 32922 Joseph Down 1430 Dixon Boulevard Cocoa, Florida 32922 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
The Issue The issues presented for decision are whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioner Gerald Castellanos1 because of his disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act, and whether Respondents retaliated against Petitioner by evicting him from his apartment in response to his filing a discriminatory housing complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
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 Commission is the state agency charged with investigating complaints of discriminatory housing practices and enforcing Florida’s Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes. The Commission is charged with investigating fair housing complaints filed with the Commission and with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq. Petitioner, Gerald Castellanos, was a resident at the Egret's Landing apartments in Palm Harbor from October 1997 until April 1999. He lived there with his wife, Donna, and his son, Gerald Castellanos, Jr. Gerald and Donna Castellanos executed an apartment lease for the term September 1, 1998 through August 31, 1999, that set forth the conditions of their tenancy for the period in controversy. The Respondent in interest is Sentinel Real Estate, Inc. ("Sentinel"), an entity that manages real estate investments for Sentinel Real Estate Fund, a group trust comprising a number of investor pension funds. The nominal property owner of Egret’s Landing is Sentinel Real Estate Fund. Petitioner alleged that he suffered from a mental disability that impeded his ability to pay his monthly rent in a timely manner. Petitioner alleged that Sentinel refused to accommodate this disability, and evicted his family from Egret's Landing in retaliation for his filing a fair housing complaint with HUD. The evidence admitted at the hearing established that at the time of his eviction, Petitioner was under the care of a psychologist for a depressive mood disorder. Petitioner was taking at least four different prescription drugs for his condition. Petitioner offered no medical evidence or testimony to establish the manner in which his disorder impaired or limited his major life activities, or the degree to which his condition was disabling. Petitioner testified that he functions "pretty well" when he takes his medication, though he experiences some problems with short-term memory. Petitioner conceded that he did not directly ask Sentinel to provide an accommodation for his disability. Petitioner's case rested on the theory that the course of dealing between Sentinel and him should have placed Sentinel on notice that he was suffering from a mental disability and caused Sentinel to accede to his request that he be allowed to pay his rent late on a regular basis. On or about December 12, 1998, Petitioner paid his overdue rent to Lisa Dunton, the manager of Egret's Landing. In a handwritten note accompanying his rent check, Petitioner stated that he had been in the hospital and "under heavy medication" recently. He also wrote: "Apparently, the sleep deprivation caused over the last year, due to you know what, activated a serious chemical imbalance in my brain and in fact even to my cells throughout my body." The note went on to discuss the large amount of money Petitioner was paying and would continue to pay for medications, "with no end in sight." Petitioner testified as to prior conversations with Ms. Dunton about his mental condition. He stated that he offered to put her in touch with his psychologists to verify his statements about his condition. He implied that the "due to you know what" statement in his note referred to these earlier conversations with Ms. Dunton about his mental condition. Ms. Dunton recalled no such conversations. She assumed that "sleep deprivation . . . due to you know what" in the note referred to noisy neighbors that Petitioner had been complaining about for a period of months. Petitioner admitted under cross-examination that "you know what" referred to the noisy neighbors. Ms. Dunton had no recollection of Petitioner or his wife ever asking for an accommodation related to his disability. Lisa Stottlemyre, the assistant manager at Egret's Landing, recalled no conversations with Petitioner regarding his mental disability. She recalled no accommodation request from Petitioner or his wife. Petitioner's wife, Donna Castellanos, never told anyone about her husband's disability and never requested that Sentinel make any accommodation for her husband's condition. In light of the testimony from other witnesses, Ms. Dunton's testimony is credited. It is found that Petitioner did not discuss his mental condition with Ms. Dunton, aside from whatever mental distress was caused by the noisy neighbors. To satisfy Petitioner, who was the only resident complaining about noise, Ms. Dunton moved the neighbors to a different apartment in the same complex. Petitioner testified that he was reticent about discussing his condition because of the stigma associated with having a mental disability. While continuing to maintain that he had discussed his condition with Ms. Dunton, Petitioner admitted that he did not directly request any accommodation related to his disability. Petitioner argued, paradoxically, that his reticence to discuss his condition placed a higher burden of sensitivity on the employees of Sentinel to divine his mental state without assistance. Petitioner requested that Sentinel allow him to pay his rent late on a regular basis, but presented this request in terms of cash flow difficulties, unrelated to his disability. Sentinel presented uncontested evidence that it does not allow tenants to pay rent late on a regular basis, and that any exceptions to this policy cannot be authorized by on-site employees such as Ms. Dunton and Ms. Stottlemyre, but require the approval of a district or regional manager. As indicated below, Sentinel was in practice more forbearing of Petitioner's repeated late rent payments than was required by the terms of the lease. Both Ms. Dunton and Ms. Stottlemyre testified that if a person with a handicap asks for a reasonable accommodation, Sentinel will work with the person and do the best they can to assist the person. Both Ms. Dunton and Ms. Stottlemyre, as agents for Sentinel, they have reasonably accommodated individuals with disabilities and/or handicaps in accordance with the Fair Housing Act. The rental agreement provided that rent of $960.00, plus pet and garage charges, was due without demand on the first day of each month, with no grace period. If the rent was not paid on or before the third day of the month, $25.00 would be added to the rent. Petitioner was chronically late in paying his rent. Sentinel sent a "Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Give Possession" to Petitioner on six separate occasions: September 8, 1998; December 8, 1998; December 28, 1998; February 12, 1999; February 17, 1999; and March 5, 1999. The evidence established that at least one of these late payment situations was due to a bank error rather than any fault of Petitioner, and that Sentinel initially displayed patience and a willingness to work out problems with Petitioner. Petitioner's rent for March 1999 was not paid as of March 16, 1999. Petitioner told Ms. Stottlemyre that the money had been sent to the wrong account, and that the rent would be paid the next day. Three days later, March 19, the rent still had not been paid. When Ms. Stottlemyre inquired about the rent, Petitioner directed her to an attorney who he said would handle payment of the rent. On March 23, Ms. Stottlemyre contacted the attorney, who was unaware of any such arrangement. Ms. Stottlemyre spoke again with Petitioner, who said that he would no longer speak with her about the matter. Ms. Stottlemyre consulted her supervisor, Ms. Dunton, who advised her to forward the matter to Sentinel's local attorney. On March 24, 1999, Sentinel commenced eviction proceedings against Petitioner by filing a complaint in the county court for Pinellas County. Petitioner filed an answer with the court on April 2, 1999. The answer averred, "It is my perception that a certain animus exists against Defendant, because of his race." Petitioner is of Hispanic descent. The answer also stated: "The Department of Housing and Urban Development will be contacted, regarding the total lack of insensitivity [sic], training (diversity) and lack of supervision of [Sentinel's] agents." The answer made no mention of Petitioner's alleged mental disability. The final hearing in the eviction proceeding was held on April 19, 1999. On that date, the court entered a final judgment giving Sentinel possession of the apartment and ordering Petitioner and his family to vacate the premises. Pursuant to the judgment, a writ of possession was issued on April 22, 1999, directing the sheriff to remove all persons from the property and place Sentinel in full possession of the property. Subsequent to April 19, 1999, Petitioner took no steps to vacate the premises, despite advice from Jamy Magro, his counsel in the eviction proceeding, that the eviction was final and he should make arrangements to change his residence. On April 23, 1999, Detective Daryl Waterman of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office posted a writ of possession notice on the door or window of the apartment, informing Petitioner that he had 24 hours to vacate the premises. Petitioner apparently removed the notice, because Mrs. Castellanos knew nothing about the result of the April 19 eviction proceeding until April 27, when the physical eviction took place. On the morning of April 27, 1999, Detective Waterman and Deputy Chuck Gilmore arrived to secure the premises for Sentinel. They were dismayed to discover that Petitioner was still in the apartment and had taken no steps to move out his belongings. They contacted Ms. Dunton, who was at a doctor's appointment, and waited for her to arrive before taking any further steps. Ms. Dunton testified that this situation was unique in her experience. She stated that when residents are evicted, they generally take their belongings and leave the premises. Petitioner recalled that Ms. Dunton arrived at his apartment at around 10 a.m., that he spoke with her, that they agreed to "let the lawyers handle it," and that nothing would be done immediately to move Petitioner's property out of the apartment. Petitioner testified that he told Ms. Dunton that he was in no condition to deal with the matter at that time. Ms. Dunton had no recollection of a morning conversation with Petitioner. She recalled arriving at Egret's Landing and calling her district manager and Sentinel's local legal counsel for advice on how to proceed. Both of these people advised her to have Petitioner's property removed from the apartment and placed outside the boundary of Egret's Landing's property. Ms. Dunton did not wish to do this to Petitioner, and called Sentinel's general counsel in New York, who told her to follow the advice she was getting locally. Ms. Dunton commenced calling moving companies to get bids on moving Petitioner's belongings off the property. At some time early in the afternoon, she gave the job to John Bingham, owner of A-1 Movers in Palm Harbor. Ms. Dunton phoned Petitioner at his cellular number and informed him that the movers would be putting his possessions on the exterior of the Egret's Landing property. Petitioner replied that he was in St. Petersburg and would not be able to come for his property. He told Ms. Dunton that HUD would make Sentinel "replace everything." Ms. Dunton assumed the reference to HUD related to Petitioner's earlier allegation of a "certain animus" against Petitioner because of his race. She placed no great importance on the statement, aside from a degree of resentment at the allegation because she is also Hispanic. To minimize the cost of the move, which would ultimately be billed to Petitioner, Ms. Dunton assigned her maintenance supervisor to pack small items in boxes while Mr. Bingham took care of loading larger items into his truck. Late on the afternoon of April 27, Mr. Bingham deposited the contents of Petitioner's former apartment on the curb outside the back entrance of Egret's Landing. It is undisputed that passersby stole most of those contents. Petitioner's insurance ultimately reimbursed him for the loss, which the insurance company classified as "theft." Petitioner alleged that this "theft" classification established that Sentinel stole his property, but did not support this allegation with evidence. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Dunton was involved in the theft of jewelry and other valuables during the move. Petitioner testified that he managed to recover items that Ms. Dunton had stored in the garage of the apartment, but that these were of little value, and he theorized that Ms. Dunton or her employees had stolen the valuable items while packing the apartment. Ms. Dunton credibly testified that Petitioner found items in the garage because the garage door was closed at the time of the move and she did not know the items were there. Ms. Dunton did not personally participate in the packing or moving of Petitioner's belongings. Petitioner also made much of Mr. Bingham's deposition testimony that it appeared people were waiting outside the Egret's Landing boundary when he unloaded Petitioner's belongings. Petitioner claimed that this testimony established that Ms. Dunton or someone else working for Sentinel had accomplices who had been tipped off that his valuables would be there for the taking when Mr. Bingham unloaded them. Petitioner's theory is completely at odds with the evidence. Sentinel gave Petitioner more time than the law required to remove his belongings from the apartment. Even on the day of the physical eviction, Ms. Dunton phoned Petitioner and warned him about what was happening. Petitioner did nothing, save make his cryptic warning about HUD. Petitioner alleged that the manner of his eviction was in retaliation for his having filed a housing discrimination claim with HUD. There was no evidence that such a claim was filed prior to the entry of the eviction judgment on April 19, or that anyone working at Egret's Landing was aware of such a claim as of April 27, the date of the physical eviction. The only record evidence concerning a HUD complaint was a copy of an envelope addressed to HUD by Petitioner, postmarked April 20, 1999, the day after the eviction judgment. Petitioner's attorney during the eviction proceeding, Mr. Magro, had no independent knowledge of filing a HUD complaint, and only recalled faxing copies of the postmarked envelope to Sentinel's local counsel two days after entry of the judgment. Petitioner failed to produce the actual HUD complaint, which in any event would have had no bearing on Sentinel's decision to evict Petitioner, because the eviction proceeding was commenced on March 24, 1999. As noted above, Mrs. Castellanos was unaware of the result of the eviction proceeding when she went to work on the morning of April 27. At 2:30 p.m., she received a phone call from her son, who had come home from school and been unable to get into the apartment because the locks had been changed. Shortly thereafter, she received a phone call from Petitioner, who asked her to meet him and their son at a restaurant after work. They met at the restaurant, then went to a Quality Inn motel where the family stayed for a time following their eviction. Mrs. Castellanos was well aware of her husband's condition, yet she told no one about it and continued to acquiesce in Petitioner's handling of the family's finances, including dealing with Sentinel. It was unclear how much Mrs. Castellanos knew of the repeated late rent payments and the eviction proceedings. Mrs. Castellanos held a responsible job with the Pinellas County School Board and gave every indication of being an intelligent, reasonable person, but could offer no rational explanation for why she did not at least monitor her husband's actions to ensure that basic family responsibilities such as rent payments were being fulfilled. She expressed only some anxiety that she might have injured her husband's pride by taking over his handling of financial matters. Even assuming that he suffered from a mental handicap, Petitioner nonetheless produced no evidence to establish a causal connection between his mental condition and his ability to pay rent in a timely manner. Petitioner offered no explanation as to why he did not have his wife take over paying the rent during his incapacity. Petitioner produced no evidence that he requested an accommodation from Sentinel based upon his disability. Petitioner produced no evidence that his eviction was for any reason other than his failure to pay the rent due to Egret's Landing. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Sentinel or its agents failed to follow the law during the eviction proceedings, or that Sentinel or its agents committed theft of his property during the physical eviction. Sentinel's management may have been harsh in ordering Ms. Dunton to clear Petitioner's belongings from the apartment and place them off the Egret's Landing property, but Petitioner's failure to make provision for moving out or even to inform his wife of the eviction judgment left Sentinel with little option to secure its property pursuant to that judgment.
Recommendation Upon 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. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 28th day of August, 2001.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Community Housing Initiative, Inc. (Respondent), committed a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner, Karen Lee Krason (Petitioner), in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact On or about June 11, 2009, Petitioner filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint with the Commission. Pursuant to the Commission's procedure, an investigation of the matter was completed that resulted in a Notice of Determination of No Cause. Essentially, the Commission found that based upon the allegations raised by Petitioner there was no cause from which it could be found that Respondent had violated the Florida Fair Housing Act. Thereafter, Petitioner elected to file a Petition for Relief to challenge the determination and to seek relief against Respondent for the alleged violation. The Commission then forwarded the matter to DOAH for formal proceedings. DOAH issued a Notice of Hearing that was provided to all parties at their addresses of record. The postal service did not return the notices as undelivered. It is presumed the parties received notice of the hearing date, time, and location. Petitioner did not appear at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's claim of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Lee Krason 1715 Erin Court Northeast Palm Bay, Florida 32905 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 COPIES FURNISHED BY CERTIFIED MAIL Nicole Tenpenny, Registered Agent Community Housing Initiative, Inc. 3033 College Wood Drive Melbourne, Florida 32941 (Certified No. 91 7108 2133 3935 7995 3000) Nicole Tenpenny, Registered Agent Community Housing Initiative, Inc. Post Office Box 410522 Melbourne, Florida 32941-0522 (Certified No. 91 7108 2133 3935 7995 2997) Michael Rogers, Officer/Director Community Housing Initiative, Inc. 1890 Palm Bay Road, Northeast Palm Bay, Florida 32905 (Certified No. 91 7108 2133 3935 7995 2980)
Findings Of Fact Based on the undisputed facts included in pleadings filed in this proceeding and on the documentary evidence attached to the Association's Renewed Motion to Dismiss, the following findings of fact are made: On or about April 16, 1999, Ms. Thornhill filed a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in which she accused the Association of housing discrimination on the basis of handicap and coercion. The complaint was apparently based on the Association's attempts to make Ms. Thornhill remove a set of steps leading from the terrace of her apartment. In June 1999, the Association filed a civil lawsuit against Ms. Thornhill in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, styled Admiral Farragut Condominium Association v. Maria Thornhill, Case No. 99-15567 CA 22. On or about September 21, 1999, Ms. Thornhill, through her attorney, filed Defendant, Maria Thornhill's Answer to Complaint. Included in the answer was a Counterclaim filed by Ms. Thornhill, through her attorney, against the Association, in which she sought injunctive relief and damages against the Association pursuant to Section 760.35(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. 1/ She asserted in the Counterclaim that she had filed a discrimination complaint against the Association with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which had been referred to the Commission and that this complaint was still pending before the Commission. Ms. Thornhill alleged in the Counterclaim that the Association had engaged in housing discrimination against her on the basis of her handicap because it had refused to accommodate her disability by giving her permission to retain the steps she had installed leading from the terrace of her apartment. Ms. Thornhill also alleged that the Association had "authorized or acquiesced in a series of actions intended as harassment and retribution" against Ms. Thornhill for having filed a housing discrimination complaint. The factual and legal bases on which Ms. Thornhill requests relief in the Petition for Relief filed with the Commission and in the Counterclaim filed in circuit court are virtually identical.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint filed by Maria T. Thornhill to enforce rights granted by the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.30 through 760.37, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 7th day of November, 2000.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race, religion, or disability in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Parklife is the owner of a mobile home community known as St. Lucie Mobile Village (the “Village”), which comprises approximately 220 homes. For the last 21 years, McGrath has leased a lot in the Village, upon which her double-wide mobile home sits. She is a white woman, approximately 60 years old, who claims to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and other unspecified anxiety disorders, and to be a practicing Jehovah’s Witness. This is a case of alleged housing discrimination brought under Florida’s Fair Housing Act (the “Act”). McGrath alleges that Parklife has discriminated against her in several ways, which can be classified as selective enforcement, disparate treatment, and retaliation. Specifically, McGrath alleges that Parklife required her to upgrade the skirting around, and also to re-level, her home, while excusing other (predominately Hispanic) residents, whose homes were in comparable condition, from making similar improvements. McGrath alleges that Parklife issued warnings to her for violating the “two vehicle” rule, while allowing other (predominately Hispanic) residents to keep three or more cars on their lots. She alleges that Parklife permitted Hispanic residents to shoot off fireworks and make noise in violation of park rules, depriving her of the peaceful enjoyment of her premises. Finally, McGrath alleges that Parklife commenced a retaliatory eviction proceeding against her for being a whistle blower. McGrath does not dispute that her home needed new skirting and to be leveled, and she admits having violated the two vehicle rule. She claims, nevertheless, that Parklife took action against her on the basis of her race (white), religion (Jehovah’s Witness), disability (PTSD), or some combination of these, as shown by its more lenient treatment of residents outside the protected categories. McGrath’s allegations are legally sufficient to state a claim of housing discrimination. That is, if McGrath were able to prove the facts she has alleged, she would be entitled to relief. She failed, however, to present sufficient, persuasive evidence in support of the charges. It is not that there is no evidence behind McGrath’s claims. She and her witness, Kassandra Rosa, testified that other residents have violated park rules regarding skirting, leveling, and allowable vehicles––seemingly without consequence. To determine whether the circumstances of these other residents were truly comparable to McGrath’s, however, so as to conclude that she was singled out for different treatment, requires more information than the evidence affords. Taken together, McGraths’s testimony and that of Ms. Rosa was simply too vague and lacking in relevant detail to support findings of disparate treatment or selective enforcement on the basis of race, religion, or handicap. Indeed, the persuasive evidence fails to establish that Parklife declined to take appropriate action with regard to similarly-situated violators, or that it otherwise condoned, or acquiesced to, the rulebreaking of such residents. At most, the evidence shows that other residents violated the same rules as McGrath––not that they got off scot-free, which is a different matter. As for the eviction proceeding, which was pending in county court at the time of the final hearing, there is insufficient evidence (if any) to support McGrath’s contention that Parklife is retaliating against her or using the legal process as a pretext for unlawfully depriving her of a dwelling in violation of the Act. In terms of timing, Parklife initiated the eviction proceeding before it became aware that McGrath had filed a complaint of housing discrimination, which tends to undermine the assertion that the eviction was brought to retaliate against McGrath for exercising her rights under the Act. More important is that Parklife has articulated and proved nondiscriminatory grounds for seeking to terminate McGrath’s lease. Residents have complained to the Village’s management that McGrath has harassed her neighbors at various times, in various ways. While there is insufficient nonhearsay evidence in the instant record for the undersigned to make findings as to whether McGrath did, in fact, harass other residents in violation of park rules, Parklife proved by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence that it was on notice of such alleged misconduct on McGrath’s part. The fact that Parklife had such notice is sufficient to show that its bringing an action to evict McGrath was not merely a pretext for unlawful discrimination against her. Of course, the question of whether Parklife is entitled to terminate McGrath’s tenancy is one that need not, and cannot, be decided in this proceeding. It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that McGrath has failed to establish by the greater weight of the evidence that Parklife or any of the Respondents, jointly or severally, committed an unlawful housing practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Parklife not liable for housing discrimination and awarding McGrath no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Laney H. McGrath 11500 Southwest Kanner Highway, Lot 317 Indiantown, Florida 34956 (eServed) Teresa Schenk St. Lucie Village Parklife, LLC 11500 Southwest Kanner Highway Indiantown, Florida 34956 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race or sex in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Alicia Valentine ("Valentine") is an African- American woman who currently resides in Chicago but lived in Miami, Florida, at all relevant times. Respondent Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami, Inc. ("Catholic Charities"), is a Florida nonprofit corporation that provides social services in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Monroe counties. At no time relevant to this action did Catholic Charities sell, lease, rent, finance, broker, or manage real property, including dwellings of any nature. At all relevant times, Valentine leased Apartment No. 1410 at 1451 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, for the sum of $2,000.00 per month from her landlord, Park Place at Brickell, LLC. Before contacting Catholic Charities and setting in motion the events that led to this action, Valentine had lost her job, exhausted her unemployment compensation payments, and wound up having no income. Unable to pay rent, Valentine applied to Catholic Charities, on or around January 27, 2016, for emergency rental assistance to avoid losing her apartment. Catholic Charities runs an Emergency Services program that provides cash payments to individuals to help them pay one month's rent in crisis situations. The program limits rental assistance to a single payment of up to $1,000.00 per applicant, which may be received only once every 12 months. Catholic Charities has written eligibility criteria that an applicant must satisfy to qualify for emergency rental assistance. The eligibility criteria require that the applicant have an eviction notice; justification of need; proof of income (showing ability to continue paying the rent after assistance); some form of identification; and a Social Security card. Catholic Charities denied Valentine's request for emergency rental assistance because she failed to meet all of the eligibility requirements. Specifically, Valentine did not provide an eviction notice, nor, perhaps more important, did she provide proof of income. Thus, Valentine failed to demonstrate that she had the ability to pay the balance of her $2,000.00 monthly rent——or any subsequent month's rent——if provided the maximum $1,000.00 in emergency assistance. It is undisputed, moreover, that Valentine never personally appeared at Catholic Charities' office to verify her identity, although, in fairness to Valentine, there is some uncertainty as to whether Catholic Charities communicated to Valentine that she was required to provide proof of identification in person. The fact that Valentine did not appear in person to verify her identity is, however, ultimately immaterial, for even if she had, her application still would have been denied based on the failure to satisfy other eligibility criteria, e.g., proof of sufficient future income. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of Catholic Charities' decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Valentine, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus directed toward Valentine. There is no persuasive evidence that Valentine met the written eligibility criteria for emergency rental assistance. There is no persuasive evidence that Catholic Charities sold, leased, rented, financed, or managed real property. There is competent, persuasive evidence that Valentine did not qualify for emergency rental assistance and was denied on that basis. In sum, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Catholic Charities did not commit any prohibited act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Catholic Charities not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Valentine no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2016.
