The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents committed a housing discriminatory practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact On or about January 20, 2009, the Petitioner filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (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 the Petitioner there was no cause from which it could be found the Respondents had violated the Florida Fair Housing Act. Thereafter, the Petitioner elected to file a Petition for Relief to challenge the determination and to seek relief against the Respondents for the alleged violation. The Commission then forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings. The Division of Administrative Hearings 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. No party appeared 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 the Petitioner's claim of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 6th day of August, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Leaford Green Danett Green 3758 Southwest Findlay Street Port St. Lucie, Florida 34953 Paula Adams Post Office Box 1665 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Cordell John, (Landlord) discriminated against Petitioner, Denise Johnson- Acosta (Johnson) on the basis of her or her daughter’s alleged handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Johnson is a Hispanic woman. She has asthma and other medical conditions. Johnson has a teenage daughter, Ashley Denise Rivera. Ashley has a seizure disorder and has bipolar disorder. Johnson is engaged to Alexis Pons. The Landlord is an African-American male. He owns the property located at 13847 Beauregard Place in Orlando, Florida (the Property). The Property is a single-family residential townhouse. At some unspecified time during calendar year 2012, Johnson approached the Landlord expressing an interest in leasing the Property. At that time, another tenant was living in the Property but was in the process of moving out. The Landlord showed Johnson the Property. Johnson expressed her complete satisfaction with the Property and that she would like to lease it (and possibly buy it in the future). At first sight, Johnson liked everything about the Property except for the back yard. On September 10, 2012, the Landlord emailed a Rental Application to Johnson. The email advised Johnson that there would be a $50 application fee which must be paid when the application was delivered. In response to the email, Johnson confirmed that she wanted to view the Property on the upcoming Thursday. On September 11, 2012, Johnson filled out the Rental Application and provided it to the Landlord for review. The application listed Johnson as the primary tenant and Ashley and Pons as additional residents. The application also noted that Johnson had a pet, a petite Chihuahua, which would be living in the unit. After reviewing the application, the Landlord notified Johnson via email that he would need pictures of the Chihuahua. He also asked how much the dog weighed. The Landlord also told Johnson that the rent would be $1,250 per month and that a $200 nonrefundable pet fee must be paid. Johnson replied that the dog weighed four pounds. She was concerned that the Landlord was now quoting $1,250 per month when earlier discussions had indicated the rent would be $1,200 per month. Johnson thanked the Landlord and agreed to provide a picture of the dog. The Landlord replied to Johnson that when pets are involved, the rent is increased slightly. Johnson and the Landlord had a conversation on September 17, 2012. By email dated September 18, 2012, Johnson told the Landlord that she had decided to withdraw her application because of “multiple misunderstandings” between the parties. At some point thereafter, Johnson decided to go through with the lease after all. On October 20, 2012, Johnson did a walk-through inspection of the Property. By way of her signature on the walk-through check list, Johnson agreed that the living room, kitchen, dining room, both bathrooms, both bedrooms, and all other portions of the Property were satisfactory. The only caveat was that there was stain on a counter in the kitchen area. Johnson said she would “advise at time of move” as to her feelings about the parking areas and the patio/terrace/deck area. On November 2, 2012, Johnson and the Landlord entered into a binding Residential Tenancy Agreement. Johnson initialed each page and signed the agreement. The agreement was witnessed by two individuals. On or about that same date, Johnson gave the Landlord several money orders: A $250 money order for the pet deposit; $50 for Pons’ application fee, and $880 for prorated rent for November. Johnson did not complain about the pet deposit at that time. Johnson moved into the Property on or about November 2, 2012. About two months later, on January 1, 2013, Johnson mailed a letter to the Landlord via certified mail, return receipt requested. The letter advised the Landlord that Johnson would be moving out of the Property on or before January 14, 2013. The letter cited several bases for the decision to move out, including: Air condition vents were “visibly covered with dust and dark surroundings”; Johnson and her daughter have severe allergies; Johnson has acute asthma and bronchitis; and The dwelling is unlivable. Johnson also claimed many violations of Florida law by the Landlord concerning the lease, including: Taking a deposit for a pet when that pet was in fact a companion dog. (Johnson submitted a letter into evidence from a behavioral health care employee. The letter, dated some five months after Johnson vacated the unit, said that Ashley would benefit from having a companion dog as she did not have many friends. There was no evidence that the Chihuahua was ever registered or approved as a companion dog.); Smoke alarms which were not in working order; Electrical breakers tripping throughout Property; Unreimbursed expenses, e.g., for changing locks; Failure to put Pons on the lease agreement despite doing a background financial check on him; and Harassment from Bank of America employees trying to collect the Landlord’s mortgage payment for the Property. In the letter stating she would be moving, Johnson expressed her sorrow that the housing situation did not work out. She then set forth the amount of deposit money she believed should be returned to her. In response, she received a letter from the Landlord’s counsel advising that her security and pet deposits had been forfeited. On January 4, 2013, the Landlord posted a notice on the Property door demanding payment of outstanding rent within three days. In lieu of payment, Johnson could vacate the premises within three days. Johnson vacated the premises. On January 14, 2013, Johnson did an exit walk-through of the Property, along with the Landlord, his mother, and Pons. At the completion of the walk- through, Johnson turned over the keys for the Property to the Landlord. Johnson claims discrimination on the part of the Landlord because he failed to recognize or accept the companion dog, failed to put Pons on the lease agreement, and failed to make accommodations for Johnson’s claimed health conditions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Denise Johnson-Acosta in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cordell John 2921 Swoops Circle Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Denise Johnson-Acosta Post Office Box 453347 Kissimmee, Florida 34745 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations and the Division of Administrative Hearings have jurisdiction pursuant to Section 760.34, Florida Statutes, to consider Petitioner's Petition for Relief; and Whether Petitioner timely filed his Petition for Relief with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Facts are made: Petitioner contracted to purchase a condominium, "unit 206 in Building 425 at Serravella at Spring Valley" from Respondent. For reasons not relevant to the issues presented for determination, closing was deferred; and on December 22, 2006, Petitioner signed and submitted an "Addendum to Contract" to Respondent that sought "to revise contract closing date to 2/28/2007." Sometime in late December 2006, a telephone conversation took place among Steve Myers, a realtor for Serra Villa, Petitioner, and Barefield. Barefield was in Alabama, and Myers and Petitioner were in Florida on a speakerphone. Barefield advised Petitioner that the addendum would not be accepted by Respondent. Barefield and Petitioner did not speak to each other after this December telephone conversation. All communication was accomplished through third parties. Subsequent to Respondent's refusal to accept Petitioner's addendum, there is lengthy correspondence and litigation involving the parties. For some time after Respondent rejected Petitioner's addendum, Petitioner desired to purchase the condominium and, apparently, indicated so in various offers communicated by his attorneys to Respondent. If an unlawful discriminatory act occurred, the determination of which is not an issue presented for determination, the act occurred in December 2006. Petitioner's Housing Discrimination Complaint dated September 17, 2008, and signed by Petitioner on September 22, 2008, was filed with United States Department of Housing and Urban Development more than one year after the alleged act of discrimination. On November 6, 2008, Petitioner sent a four-page fax transmission to Lisa Sutherland, a FCHR employee, which included a Petition for Relief. On November 13, 2008, Petitioner sent a second fax transmission of seven pages to Lisa Sutherland. Apparently, this second transmission included a Petition for Relief. On December 4, 2008, Petitioner sent a third fax transmission addressed to "Mrs. Crawford/Lisa Sutherland." While the fax transmission cover sheet is dated "11-13-08," the report of transmission shows that this 11-page transmission was sent on "12/04 15:24." The Petition for Relief forwarded by FCHR to DOAH was date-stamped "2008 DEC-4 PM 3:25."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR dismiss the Petition for Relief as being time-barred as a result of the late filing of Petitioner, Ricardo Vega's, Housing Discrimination Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard S. Taylor, Jr., Esquire 531 Dog Track Road Longwood, Florida 32750-6547 Barbara Billiot-Stage, Esquire Law Offices of Barbara Billiot-Stage, PA 5401 South Kirkman Road, Suite 310 Orlando, Florida 32819
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based upon Petitioner’s race or handicap in providing housing assistance. Whether Respondent, in providing housing assistance, failed to make reasonable accommodations for Petitioner’s physical disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and his family have been in subsidized housing for many years. Most recently, housing assistance has been provided by the Alachua County Housing Authority, first through the Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program and, currently, through Section 8 subsidized housing. At the time of the administrative hearing, Petitioner and his family were still in Section 8 housing administered by Respondent. Under the TBRA program, the Castellio family was required to meet regularly with Housing Authority staff and their affiliates. They also had to meet certain performance standards relative to employment searches and maintenance of the household. Petitioner’s family was often unable to meet those performance standards-–particularly with respect to employment and payment of electrical bills. Because of his interactions with Respondent's staff, Petitioner had earned the reputation of being loud, demanding, and physically imposing. In one incident, Petitioner tried to prevent one of Respondent's workers from mowing his yard by physically blocking the lawn mower, even though such maintenance was required under the government program and was also an issue of local code enforcement. More than one of Respondent's staff reported that Petitioner would raise his voice when he was in Respondent's Housing Authority office. Some of Respondent's staff were intimidated by Petitioner. Because of this, the director of the Alachua Housing Authority, Gail Monahan, was tasked with dealing with Petitioner and the Castellio family. The pertinent part of Petitioner's Complaint states: My name is Christopher S.A. Castellio. My wife's name is Ethelyn L. Reese-Castello. We are the proud parents of five children which ages are 5, 7, 9, 11, and 16. Our 16 year old is living in Bend, Oregon with his uncle who has more resources to provide for him. Approximately for two years now, my family and I have lived on Section 8 through the Alachua County Housing Authority here in Gainesville, Florida. We have to report to the Executive Director of the Alachua County Housing Authority, Ms. Gail Monahan, every Wednesday of every week in order to report progress of trying to become self supporting and financial independent. During this time I have been humiliated in front of my wife, Ms. Monahan's office staff, other customers and patrons and, most humiliating, in front of my own kids. Ms. Gail Monahan has absolutely no compassion, professionalism, or moral conduct. Ms. Gail Monahan has called me everything but a child of God. In front of my kids, she has called me a lying sack of s-t, a sorry son of a b--h, a con artist, a--hole, and an f--wad. One day I just walked into her office and the first thing she said was, "hay you little s--tbird, what have you done s--ted out today." I served 6 years in the United States Marine Corps during Desert Storm from 1986 until 1992. While serving I injured my knee in Kuwait. I returned to the states where I underwent knee surgery. I was honorably discharged several months later. Ms. Monahan says I'm lying about my service, despite my service and medical records. Right now I am in constant pain in both my knees and my back. I have taken two MRI's for both knees and my doctor says that I desperately need a total right knee replacement and a basic left knee operation based on my MRI's. Ms. Monahan also says that's a lie. And she refuses to look at any doctor's reports. She said I probably faked them. Ever since I've been meeting with Ms. Monahan she has always had something discrimitory [sic], degrading, intimidating, and threaten [sic] to say to me. She always threatens to take our housing away from us, like she's doing right now, if we don't do exactly what she says to do. I do believe that she is prejudice [sic] against me because I am a very, very light-skinned black man with red hair and freckles. I do look like a white man to most people and my wife is very dark skinned African American. We have done everything she has told us to do but still she says that we have done nothing. She does not take into consideration the bad economy and that jobs are very hard to come by and that more and more people are being laid off every day. So she is going to make a family with 4 small children become homeless just because I can't work because of my back and my knees and because my wife couldn't find a job in today's economy. By the way, my wife has finally found a job working at Wal-mart. We finally received a letter from Ms. Monahan informing us of the termination of tenant based rental assistance. In the allotted time of seven working days, I have answered her letter in writing, requesting a hearing to appeal her decision. As of the date of this letter, I have not received anything or any notice of any hearing from Ms. Monahan. I will fax you a copy of both letters. Our move out date has been set as December 31st, 2009. Consistent with his Complaint, Petitioner testified that Ms. Monahan, the director of the Alachua County Housing Authority treated him badly, believed he was lazy, and questioned whether he suffered from a physical disability. In further support of the allegations, Petitioner’s wife, Ms. Reese-Castellio, testified that Gail Monahan was “mean” to their family. According to Ms. Reese-Castellio, Ms. Monahan called Petitioner a liar, said that he “didn’t give a damn” about his family, and suggested to her that she should consider leaving Petitioner. At the final hearing, Ms. Monahan admitted that she did not respect Mr. Castellio because he did not appear to be making any effort to support his family. She denied, however, that she cursed at him, and testified that she never discriminated against Petitioner or his family. While it is clear that there was personal animosity between Petitioner and Ms. Monahan, the evidence was insufficient to show that either Ms. Monahan or Respondent discriminated against Petitioner or his family. On cross-examination, Ms. Reese-Castellio disclosed that Ms. Monahan's remarks were only directed toward Petitioner, and that Ms. Monahan did not use racial epithets or otherwise give any indication that she was discriminating against Petitioner or his family because of race, handicap, or any other impermissible factor. Petitioner's wife further testified that she had no complaints about any of the other staff members at the Housing Authority. Likewise, Petitioner failed to provide evidence that either Ms. Monahan or Respondent has ever acted in a discriminatory manner toward him or his family based on race, ethnicity, handicap, or any other impermissible basis. Further, the evidence presented at the final hearing did not show that either Petitioner or his family have ever been denied housing assistance by Respondent. In fact, the evidence revealed that Petitioner and his family’s housing benefits administered by Respondent have never been interrupted or denied, and that the Castellio family has been treated at least as well, if not better, than other housing clients served by Respondent. In addition to administering basic housing benefits under TBRA and the Section 8 program, Respondent arranged to pay over $1,300 to repair Petitioner’s family car, paid for utilities when the Castellios were unable to do so, and provided bus vouchers and other transportation for the family on a regular basis. Respondent’s decision to provide these additional benefits was made by Ms. Monahan. At the final hearing, both Petitioner and his wife confirmed that Respondent had provided additional assistance and that Gail Monahan had control over these additional benefits. Neither Petitioner nor Ms. Reese-Castellio offered an explanation for why Ms. Monahan would go “above and beyond” the requirements of subsidized housing in order to assist the Castellio family. Ms. Monahan, in her credible testimony, explained that she had considerable compassion for Ethelyn Castellio and the Petitioner’s children, and that her compassion led her to offer extensive support for the Castellio family beyond simple housing assistance. Although Petitioner testified that the family was rejected as potential tenants at an apartment complex known as “Eden Park” after initially being accepted by the private landlord, and said that he believed that Gail Monahan had something to do with the rejection, Petitioner offered no evidence to support that belief. Ms. Monahan stated that neither she nor anyone from the Housing Authority spoke to anyone at Eden Park regarding the Petitioner or his family. She explained that tenants are responsible for locating suitable housing which is then inspected and approved by the Housing Authority. The credible testimony of Ms. Monahan, together with Petitioner's own testimony and admissions, demonstrated that Respondent did not interfere in the Eden Park situation, and never delayed inspections or unreasonably rejected any housing benefits for the Castellio family. In addition, while indeed, as alleged in the Complaint, Respondent issued a letter informing Petitioner that his family's rental assistance was scheduled to be terminated, the evidence adduced at the final hearing showed that the letter was issued in error, and that it was withdrawn. Finally, while the Commission states on page 5 of its Determination of no cause dated February 16, 2010, that “Complainant alleged he requested a reasonable accommodation, and Respondents denied his request,” a plain reading of the Complaint, quoted in paragraph 7, above, does not reveal that Petitioner ever alleged that Respondent failed to accommodate his disability. Moreover, the applications Petitioner and his family filed in 2008 and 2009 to obtain housing assistance from the Respondent state that the family was not seeking any accommodations on account of disability and that no one in the family suffered from any physical handicap. At the final hearing, Petitioner confirmed that the family never asked Respondent for accommodation based on any physical disability and reported in their applications that no member of the family was handicapped or required an accommodation.
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 Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner because of handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Petitioner Shelley M. Wright ("Wright") was a graduate student at Florida International University ("FIU") in Miami, Florida. Wright has a physical disability that affects her mobility, and, as a result, she uses a wheelchair or scooter to get around. There is no dispute that Wright falls within a class of persons protected against discrimination under the Florida Fair Housing Act ("FFHA"). Respondent Servitas Management Group, LLC ("SMG"), manages Bayview Student Living ("Bayview"), a privately owned student housing community located on FIU's campus. Bayview's owner, NCCD — Biscayne Properties, LLC, leases (from FIU) the real estate on which the project is situated. Bayview is a recently built apartment complex, which first opened its doors to students for the 2016-2017 school year. On November 20, 2015, Wright submitted a rental application for a single occupancy efficiency apartment in Bayview, fitted out for residents with disabilities. She was charged an application fee of $100.00, as were all applicants, plus a "convenience fee" of $6.45. Much later, Wright would request that SMG refund the application fee, and SMG would deny her request, although it would give her a credit of $6.45 to erase the convenience fee on the grounds that it had been charged in error. Wright complains that this transaction was tainted with unlawful discrimination, but there is no evidence of such, and thus the fees will not be discussed further. Wright's application was approved, and, accordingly, she soon executed a Student Housing Lease Contract ("First Lease") for a term commencing on August 20, 2016, and ending on July 31, 2017. The First Lease stated that her rent would be $1,153.00 per month, and that the total rent for the lease term would be $12,683.00. Because Wright was one of the first students to sign a lease, she won some incentives, namely $500.00 in Visa gift cards and an iPad Pro. The First Lease provided that she would receive a $200.00 gift card upon lease execution and the balance of $300.00 upon moving in. As it happened, Wright did not receive the gift cards in two installments, but instead accepted five cards worth $500.00, in the aggregate, on August 20, 2016. There were two reasons for this. One was that SMG required lease holders to appear in-person to take possession of the gift cards and sign a receipt acknowledging delivery. Wright was unable (or unwilling) to travel to SMG's office until she moved to Miami in August 2016 to attend FIU. The other was that SMG decided not to use gift cards as the means of paying this particular incentive after integrating its rent collection operation with FIU's student accounts. Instead, SMG would issue a credit to the lease holders' student accounts in the amount of $500.00. Wright, however, insisted upon the gift cards, and so she was given them rather than the $500.00 credit. Wright has alleged that the untimely (or inconvenient) delivery of the gift cards constituted unlawful discrimination, but the evidence fails to sustain the allegation, which merits no further discussion. In May 2016, SMG asked Wright (and all other Bayview lease holders) to sign an amended lease. The revised lease made several changes that SMG called "improvements," most of which stemmed from SMG's entering into a closer working relationship with FIU. (One such change was the aforementioned substitution of a $500.00 credit for gift cards.) The amended lease, however, specified that Wright's total rent for the term would be $13,836.00——an increase of $1,153.00 over the amount stated in the First Lease. The explanation was that, in the First Lease, the total rent had been calculated by multiplying the monthly installment ($1,153.00) by 11, which did not account for the 12 days in August 2016 included in the lease term. SMG claimed that the intent all along had been to charge 12 monthly installments of $1,153.00 without proration (even though the tenant would not have possession of the premises for a full 12 months) and thus that the First Lease had erroneously shown the total rent as $12,683.00. As SMG saw it, the revised lease simply fixed this mistake. Wright executed the amended lease on or about May 10, 2016 (the "Second Lease"). Wright alleges that this rent "increase" was the product of unlawful discrimination, retaliation, or both. There is, however, no persuasive evidence supporting this allegation. The same rental amount was charged to all occupants of the efficiency apartments, regardless of their disabilities or lack thereof, and each of them signed the same amended lease document that Wright executed. To be sure, Wright had reason to be upset about SMG's revision of the total rent amount, which was not an improvement from her standpoint, and perhaps she had (or has) legal or equitable remedies available for breach of lease. But this administrative proceeding is not the forum for redressing such wrongs (if any). Relatedly, some tenants received a rent reduction through the amended leases SMG presented in May 2016, because the rates were reduced therein for two- and four-bedroom apartments. As was made clear at the time, however, rates were not reduced on the one-bedroom studios due to their popularity. Wright alleges that she subsequently requested an "accommodation" in the form of a rent reduction, which she argues was necessary because she leased a more expensive studio apartment, not by choice, but of necessity (since only the one- bedroom unit met her needs in light of her disabilities). This claim fails because allowing Wright to pay less for her apartment than every other tenant is charged for the same type of apartment would amount to preferential treatment, which the law does not require. Wright makes two claims of alleged discrimination that, unlike her other charges, are facially plausible. She asserts that the handicapped parking spaces at Bayview are unreasonably far away for her, given her limited mobility. She further asserts that the main entrance doors (and others in the building) do not afford two-way automatic entry, and that as a result, she has difficulty exiting through these doors. The undersigned believes it is possible, even likely, that the refusal to offer Wright a reasonable and necessary accommodation with regard to the alleged parking situation, her problems with ingress and egress, or both, if properly requested, might afford grounds for relief under the FFHA. The shortcoming in Wright's current case is the absence of persuasive proof that she ever presented an actual request for such an accommodation, explaining the necessity thereof, for SMG's consideration. There is evidence suggesting that Wright complained about the parking and the doors, perhaps even to SMG employees, but a gripe, without more, is not equivalent to a request for reasonable accommodation. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of SMG's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Wright, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus directed toward Wright. There is no persuasive evidence that SMG denied a request of Wright's for a reasonable accommodation at Bayview. 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 SMG 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 SMG not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Wright no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2017, 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 27th day of September, 2017.
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 Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs as a prevailing small business party in an adjudicatory proceeding initiated by a state agency as provided under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act (FEAJA), Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Whether the amount claimed by Petitioner for attorney's fees and costs is reasonable.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent agency is charged with the administration of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.30, Florida Statutes (1995). If Petitioner is unable to obtain voluntary compliance with Sections 760.20 - 760.37, Florida Statutes, or has reasonable cause to believe a discriminatory housing practice has occurred, the Respondent agency may institute an administrative proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statues, on behalf of the aggrieved party. On February 3, 1993, Polly Leggitt filed a complaint with the Respondent agency and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Complaint named Carole Naylor, Property Administrator, as the person who discriminated against her. On March 24, 1993, the Respondent agency notified Regency Place Apartments and Carole Naylor that the Complaint had been filed, and stated that within 100 days, the Respondent agency would investigate the Complaint and give notice whether there was or was not reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred. The notice further provided that final administrative disposition of the Complaint would be completed within one year from the filing of the Complaint, which would be on or about February 3, 1994. A Notice of Determination: Cause and Issuance of an Administrative Charge was made and issued and served on August 28, 1996. It named Regency Place Apartments; Carole Naylor, Frank Cutrona, Property Manager; and Robert Stitzel, owner. The notice was issued more than one year after the filing of the Complaint. Following the formal hearing, this Administrative Law Judge made certain findings of fact which were incorporated in the Recommended Order. Those findings held, inter alia: Robert Stitzel was the developer and owner of Regency Place Apartments. Carole Naylor, at the direction of the manager Frank Cutrona, sent Ms. Leggitt letters rejecting her application for an apartment unit at Regency Place Apartments because there was no apartment of the kind she wanted that was available and further that her income was insufficient to qualify her for housing at that place. Cutrona died on December 26, 1996. Carole Naylor did not work in the rental office. She made no judgments regarding the rental of the apartment, nor the creditworthiness of the prospective tenants. Robert Stitzel made no judgments regarding the tenants. Regency Place Apartments had a policy which requires income equaling three times the gross rental. The creditworthiness and the determination of who would rent apartments was left solely with the resident manager. Stitzel demonstrated that many disabled people had lived in the apartment complex. Accommodations were made for people with disabilities by the manager and such costs for these accommodations were paid by Regency Place Apartments. The agency made a prima facie case of discrimination in that Leggitt is a handicapped person, who is otherwise qualified to rent the apartment, and suffered a loss of a housing opportunity, under circumstances which lead to an inference that Stitzel based its action solely upon her handicap. Evidence was presented that Regency Place Apartment's requirement of gross income equaling three times the monthly rent had not been satisfied by Leggitt's mother's agreement to contribute $550 per month. Leggitt's income was $281.34 per month. Three times the monthly rent was $1,140.00, thus rendering her income short by $308.66 per month. The motivation for rejecting the application was that the apartment which Leggitt wanted was not available and Leggitt did not have sufficient income to qualify. There was no evidence of a discriminatory motive on the part of Cutrona, Naylor, Stitzel, or Regency Place Apartments, other than conjecture. There was no evidence that suggests the reasons given were not true at the time the letters were written or that they were merely pretextual. Further, it did not appear from the evidence that any discriminatory motive was proven. There was nothing in the evidence that proves that Leggitt's legal blindness was a cause of the rejection of her application. There was no evidence of any act or conduct which would suggest discriminatory conduct or a discriminatory animus by any of the persons named as Respondents in the Administrative Charge. Taken as a whole, the credible evidence indicated that the sole basis for rejecting Leggitt's application was the unavailability of the unit that she requested, and her failure to satisfy management of her financial ability to meet the financial requirements of Regency Place Apartments. Although Leggitt testified as to her inconvenience caused by the denial of her application, there was no evidence of any quantifiable damages presented at the hearing. In the Conclusions of Law, it was determined that the Motion to Dismiss should have and was granted on the grounds that the Respondent agency failed to comply with the statutory time requirements: Under the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, "the Secretary shall make an investigation of the alleged discriminatory housing practice and complete such investigation within 100 days after filing of the Complaint . . . unless it is impracticable to do so." 42 U.S.C. s 3610(a)(1)(B)(iv). The statute also provides that if "the Secretary is unable to complete the investigation within 100 days" after complainant files the complaint, the Secretary "shall notify the complainant and respondent in writing of the reasons for not doing so." 42 U.S.C. s. 3610(a)(1)(c). This same provision is found in the Florida Fair Housing Act. See Section 760.34, Florida Statutes (1995), and Chapter 60Y-7, Florida Administrative Code. The Florida Administrative Code provides as follows: "Section 60Y-7004(8)(b) If the Commission is unable to complete its investigation within 100 days, it shall notify the complainant and respondent in writing of the reasons for not doing so." Section 60Y-7.004(10) The Commission will make final administrative deposition of a complaint within one year of the date of receipt of the complaint, unless it is impracticable to do so. If the Commission is unable to do so, it shall notify the complainant and respondent in writing of the reasons for not doing so." It is undisputed in this case that the Respondent agency did not file its determination until August 28, 1996, over three and one-half years from the time Leggitt filed her complaint. It is also undisputed that the Respondent agency never notified Petitioner, or the other parties, that it would be unable to complete the investigation within 100 days as required by statute. Nor did it notify Stitzel in writing why an administrative disposition of a Complaint had not been made within one year of receipt of the Complaint. Petitioner established that the Respondent agency violated the statutory time limits and that the three and one- half year delay in filing the Respondent agency's Notice of Probable Cause caused the proceedings to be impaired and was to Petitioner's extreme prejudice. At the attorney's fee hearing, Respondent agency offered no testimony or other evidence as to the cause for the extreme delay in the filing of the Administrative Charge, or the rationale for filing the Charge two and one-half years after the expiration of the statutory deadline for filing said charges. At the attorney's fees hearing, Respondent agency offered no testimony or other evidence as to why it claimed to be substantially justified in finding probable cause and filing the Administrative Charge. The Petitioner, demonstrated that, at the time the matter was initiated, Regency Place Apartments was a business operating as a limited partnership and that Robert Stitzel was the general partner; that the principal place of business was in Florida; and that it did not have more than 25 full-time employees. Petitioner retained counsel to defend it on the charges contained in the Notice of Determination, Cause and Issuance of an Administrative Charge, and Petitioner was the prevailing small business party. Counsel for Petitioner expended 76 hours on this matter, not including time expended on the Petition for Attorney's Fees or time expended following his appearance before the Commission prior to the issuance of the final order. Counsel's billing for Petitioner's time at an hourly rate of $200 is reasonable in this case. The Petitioner's billable costs of $609.75 are reasonable.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Christina Viering, discriminated against Petitioner, Bahiyyih Watson, on the basis of Watson's race and/or religion in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Bahiyyih Watson ("Watson") is a light-skinned Black American3/ female. Watson is an adjunct professor at Valencia Community College, where she teaches cultural anthropology. Watson holds a Ph.D. in anthropology. Watson practices the religion known as Yoruba, which has a tradition of Orishas and places a great emphasis on ancestors. The religion emphasizes African traditions and a respect for elders as well. At all times relevant hereto, Watson was residing in a house at 1830 Dover Road, Winter Park, Florida (the "House"). The House is owned by Respondent, Christina Viering ("Viering"). The House is a three-bedroom house in a residential neighborhood. It has a dining room, living room, kitchen and sun room, each of which was considered a common area for all residents. On August 2, 2008, Watson and Viering entered into a legal document erroneously entitled, "Assignment of Lease" (hereinafter the "Lease"), which called for Viering to rent a room in the House. The Lease has a term of six months, i.e., from August 30, 2008, until February 28, 2009. Viering identified the Lease as a month-to-month lease, but there is no language in the Lease to confirm that description. There is a document attached to the Lease entitled, "Tenant Policies," setting forth various issues relating to the Lease. The attachment contains a provision which states: "MONTH TO MONTH LEASE TERMINATING WITH PROPER NOTICE. WHEN TERMINATING YOUR LEASE, A 30 DAY WRITTEN NOTICE IS REQUIRED." The provision does not explain how it would be interpreted in contravention of the plain language of the Lease. There is nothing in the Lease specifying a particular room for Watson, but the parties testified that Watson occupied the bedroom with a bath, presumably the master suite. The Lease did not identify a specific room for Viering. Viering testified that she resided at the House during the term of the Lease between her and Watson, but did not sleep there every night. Watson said Viering never slept at the House while she, Watson, was there. One neighbor who lived across the street said she believed Viering lived at the House during the time Watson lived there. Another neighbor said she never saw Viering's car at the House overnight and only rarely during the day. The greater weight of the evidence suggests that Viering was at the House only sporadically and probably did not reside there as a residence. At the time Watson signed the Lease, she was working as an adjunct professor at Valencia Community College. She was in the process of submitting an application, including extensive paperwork, to become a tenured professor at the University of South Florida. The application process was intense and required considerable concentration and attention to detail to complete. The application was the most important matter in Watson's life at that time. One of her reasons for selecting the House as a residence was because it was on a quiet street and appeared to be a place where she could work without major distractions. Viering was made aware of this situation. On or about March 17, 2008, another resident, Abbey Nichols, moved into one of the other bedrooms in the House. On October 17, 2008, yet another resident, Kristen Bryan, moved into the third bedroom. Both of the two new tenants were young (twenty-ish) Caucasian women who were of the Christian faith. Each of the new tenants entered into an agreement identical to the Lease, but with different dates of residency. The two new tenants were not inclined to help Watson clean or maintain the House. Viering testified that she slept overnight at the House only two or three times a month. When she slept there, she slept in the Florida room at the rear of the House. The washer and dryer were located in the Florida Room. Again, Watson does not remember Viering ever staying overnight at the House, taking her meals there, or otherwise treating it as her place of residence. Landlord-Tenant Disputes Almost immediately upon Watson taking residence in the House, she and Viering began to have disputes about various and sundry issues. For example: Watson complained that Viering was moving her personal belongings around; Viering said she only moved items off the kitchen table so that she could wash the tablecloth. Watson said that Viering had thrown away some of Watson's kitchenware; Viering said she threw away a styrofoam cup when she was cleaning the kitchen. The disputes soon escalated. On September 17, 2008, less than one month into the six-month lease, Viering sent Watson a notice to vacate the premises within 30 days. The parties must have worked out an agreement, however, because Watson remained in the House after the proffered termination date. The relationship between Viering and Watson, however, did not improve. They continued to disagree about things and communication between the two seemed quite strained. On or about November 8, 2008, Viering went to the House to check on a leak which had been reported. A neighbor from across the street, Ms. Wilson, accompanied her as she looked around the House. Viering testified under oath that while doing the inspection, she noticed mail in Watson's room that appeared to belong to Viering. When she inspected the mail and determined that it belonged to her, Viering was concerned about possible identity theft. Viering then went to the local post office and requested an address change so that her mail would not go to the House. Wilson remembers the event somewhat differently: She says that Viering said she (Viering) believed Watson had some of her mail and wanted to go into the room to check. Watson saw Viering take some mail that she claimed belonged to her, but Watson never personally identified the names on the letters. Watson denies ever having mail that belonged to Viering. The only certain fact concerning this situation was that Viering did go into Watson's room and retrieved some mail. It is not certain who the mail belonged to or whether Viering identified the mail as hers before going into Watson's room. Plumbing Problems Two days later, one of the tenants reported to Viering that the plumbing at the House was stopped up. Viering told the tenants that it was their responsibility to call a plumber and get the stoppage cleared up. She took this stance because, some ten years prior, some of Viering's tenants had flushed items down the toilet, causing a back-up in the plumbing. Viering believed her current tenants had done the same. One of the young tenant's fathers then called Viering and suggested that the plumbing problem could be caused by roots growing into the pipes, and, if so, then the problem would be the landlord's responsibility. Viering agreed then to call the plumber herself. Jamaal Crooks, a plumber working for Bryan Plumbing, came to the House on November 14, 2008, to work on the problem. He went into the House, but only into the hallway bathroom. He did not enter Watson's room or the bathroom in her room. Crooks then went outside and used a cable to reach inside the main sewer line. He pulled three tampons out of the line, thus, clearing the blockage. Crooks could not say if there were more tampons in the line at that time, but the ones he removed were sufficient to allow the sewage to flow. Crooks apparently gave Viering a bill for his services at that time. The amount on the bill was $178.00. Viering demanded that Watson pay the bill or that she at least pay her one-third share. Viering did not believe she should share in the cost, because she was not staying at the House on a permanent basis. That testimony contradicts her statements that she was at the House regularly and that it was her residence at that time. Watson refused to pay the bill, because she did not feel responsible for the stoppage. Some six days later, Bryan Plumbing issued another invoice in the amount of $178.00. The invoice included a note that said, "Tenant refused to pay bill. Christina was present the whole time." It is unclear from the testimony why this invoice was issued if a bill had been presented on the day of service. Viering ultimately paid the plumbing bill and asked each of her tenants to pay a portion of it. Watson said the plumbing worked for only four or five hours after Crooks left the premises. Viering says the plumbing was working for up to a week. It is clear the plumbing problem was not totally resolved. When a tenant would attempt to shower or flush the toilet, sewage would back up into the bathtub and shower stall. The tenants were afraid to drink water from the faucet because they did not know if it was contaminated or not. As will be discussed below, the two Caucasian tenants left the House soon after the November 14, 2008, plumbing issue. Watson, who could not afford to move and had no friends or family with space to accommodate her, remained at the House. There was no working toilet, so Watson had to find other means of performing daily hygiene. She would bathe as well as possible at local stores or gas stations. She would drive to stores to use their restrooms. At night when the stores were closed, she would reluctantly go into the backyard and dig a hole to use as a latrine. By that time she was becoming physically ill from all the stress. When she needed to vomit, she would have to use the hole in the ground for that purpose as well. Watson endured this situation for almost three weeks before finally finding another place to live. On December 19, 2008, a little over a month after the initial plumbing problem, Crooks came back to the House to fix the plumbing again. By that time, all three tenants, including Watson, had already moved out of the House. Although Crooks had no independent recollection of being at the House on that date, he identified a written statement he had made on that date saying he had "found more tampons in line [sic]." Crooks could not say if the tampons were left over from the prior visit, but inasmuch as the plumbing was not working in the interim, that is probable. Notices to Vacate On November 12, 2008, just two days after receiving her initial notice about the plumbing problem, Viering gave all three tenants a Lease Violation Warning setting forth certain alleged violations and giving the tenants three days to come into compliance. Two days later, on the day the plumbing was initially fixed, Viering gave each tenant a 30-day notice to vacate the premises. The basis for the notices, as set forth in another letter from Viering to the tenants, was that a police officer had advised her that she should evict the three tenants. Viering said that action was "radical" and that she opted for a 30-day notice of termination of the Leases instead. On the same day she gave the tenants the 30-day notice, she gave each of them a seven-day notice which specified lease violations. The notice to Bryan set forth the following violations: Failure to maintain plumbing Failure to pay share of utilities and repairs Unauthorized guests on property Unauthorized overnight guests Harassment by unauthorized guests Disturbing the peace Failure to maintain sanitary conditions The notice to Nichols set forth very similar violations, to wit: Failure to maintain premises in a sanitary manner Negligent use of plumbing Failure to pay plumbing repair Unauthorized guests on the property Unauthorized overnight guests on the property Destruction of property belonging to the landlord or permitting another person do so The notice given to Watson contained the following alleged violations: Failure to maintain plumbing Failure to comply with payments due [sic] Share of utilities to be paid Share of repair to plumbing Disposal of garbage in sanitary manner Maintaining the premises in sanitary condition Unauthorized overnight guests on a regular basis Harassment to me by yourself and guests On the same date that Viering gave the tenants their seven-day notices and 30-day termination notices, she gave Watson two additional letters: One was a letter advising Watson that her security deposit amount was being increased by an additional $100.00; the second was a demand to have Viering's dresser (which Watson was using) ready to be picked up on the upcoming weekend. Religious Controversy The rash of notices on November 14, 2008, indicates some irrationality on Viering's part. It also indicates that the landlord-client relationship was not working effectively. On that same day, Watson called the police to report Viering for harassment. While waiting for the police, Watson went into the backyard to avoid contact with Viering. Viering, however, came into the backyard and confronted Watson. Watson remembers Viering coming toward her with something in her hand, raised above her head. Viering was chanting some incantations and acting bizarre. Viering remembers only that she wanted to talk to Watson and was going to use her cell phone to videotape Watson as she talked. As she approached Watson, she recited the Lord's Prayer to cover herself with God's protection.4/ On November 15, 2008, one day after the aforementioned notices, Viering posted a Notice of Non-Renewal at the House, advising Nichols that her lease would not be renewed and that Nichols must vacate the premises no later than December 1, 2008. On that same day, Viering cut out cross-shaped designs from some magazines and posted them around the House. Viering did so as a part of her Christian religious beliefs, thinking there was "evil" in the House and hoping to eradicate it. When Watson took the crosses down because she considered them offensive, Viering made replacement crosses. Watson says Viering used paper from Watson's room to make the crosses; Viering says she used liner paper from her dresser and a Home Depot catalogue. The crosses were placed on various windows around the House. Watson states that she sent Viering a letter complaining that the crosses were traumatizing to her as a black woman. Viering does not remember any complaint from Watson about the crosses. Watson's written missive to Viering on this subject could not be produced. Watson says she also left voice messages on Viering's telephone. Viering said that she does not remember any such message, but since Watson sent her so many text and emails that were harassing in nature, Viering would frequently delete messages before reading them. The following day, Sunday, November 16, 2008, Viering returned to the House and put up wooden crosses in the front flower beds. She also painted black crosses on each slat of the privacy fence behind the House and on some windows in the House. The crosses were accompanied by messages such as, "The pure white light of Christ" and other inspirational sayings from Viering's Christian literature. The black crosses were crudely painted using a paper towel because Viering could not find a paint brush. Watson arrived home after dark and found the large cross in the front yard and the crosses painted on all the windows, which frightened her, so she asked a male neighbor to accompany her into the House to make sure no one was there. Inside the House, there were numerous crosses painted on windows and doors. All of this made Watson extremely frightened, so she called the police. She was told that unless the crosses were on fire, they could not investigate. Additional Disputes On November 17, 2008, Viering provided additional notices to the tenants: Watson was advised that her bedroom would be inspected, that she should return all items that were not her property, and that she should remove her property from the common areas of the House. Bryan received yet another Notice of Termination, effective immediately. Both Bryan and Nichols moved out of the House shortly thereafter. At some point, Watson remembers receiving a written notice telling her to vacate within seven days. The reason for the notice was that Viering had gotten into a confrontation with a black woman outside the House and presumed that the woman was Watson's friend. In fact, the woman was the mother of one of Bryan's friends.5/ Viering had borrowed a bicycle off the front porch of the House. The bike belonged to a young man who was visiting Bryan, and he thought someone had stolen the bike. The young man's mother accosted Viering for taking the bike without asking. That altercation appears to have been the genesis of the notice to Watson. On November 19, 2008, Watson contacted the Seminole County Sheriff's Office and filed a complaint against Viering. The complaint was for harassment and violation of landlord- tenant laws. Watson also contacted every state agency she could think of to seek some sort of redress from the conditions she was living in. She called, by her account, the Public Works department, the Utilities Commission, Health and Safety, and Sanitation, to name a few. None of the agencies acknowledged jurisdiction over the matter. On December 9, 2008, Viering received a letter from a local television station stating that a consumer had filed a complaint alleging denial of basic services by Viering. Thereafter, the television station broadcasted a consumer human-interest story concerning Watson's plight. At some point in time, Watson filed a Petition for Temporary Injunction against Viering, claiming some sort of violence by Viering. The Injunction proceeding was dismissed on January 6, 2009, when Watson failed to appear at the court hearing on the matter. By that date, Watson was no longer residing at the House. On or about November 30, 2008, Watson had vacated the House, ending the relationship between herself and Viering. Watson alleges discrimination based on her race due to the fact that she received more notices than the other (Caucasian) tenants from Viering. However, Watson was the longest serving tenant and had the most interaction with Viering, so there is no way to establish discrimination based solely on the number of notices. Watson alleges religious discrimination based on the bizarre behavior of Viering, such as placing crosses and religious sayings around the House, chanting the Lord's Prayer or other incantations, and referencing evil in the House. However, there is no persuasive evidence that Viering was aware of Watson's religion, Yoruba. Although Viering was in Watson's room on occasion and must have seen Watson's shrines, there is no evidence that Viering was aware of what the shrines stood for. Watson claims discrimination based on the fact that Viering was less tolerant of her than of the white, Christian tenants. The other tenants did not testify at final hearing, so it is impossible to compare their treatment to Watson's. Viering clearly acted in a very strange and unusual fashion. She was not a pleasant landlord. However, her actions appear to be based on her own personality and demeanor, rather than on any intent to discriminate based on race or religion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Bahiyyih Watson in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2011.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is handicapped within the meaning of the Florida Fair Housing Act (Sections 760.20 – 760.37, Florida Statutes) or the Federal Fair Housing Act (42 USCA § 3601 et seq.).1 Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in violation of either Act by refusing to waive its no pets policy, which would require Petitioner to remove his “emotional support animals” (two cats) from his condominium unit. Whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for his refusal to remove his cats from his condominium unit.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner owned and resided in Unit 206 of the condominium building managed by Respondent. Petitioner is a male, born February 5, 1951. Respondent is the Board of Directors of the condominium building in which Petitioner resides. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent had the following written policy (the no pets policy), which it routinely enforced2: 12. No Unit [sic] owner or lessee shall acquire a pet to be maintained in his or her unit, or shall such persons already possessing pets replace them when such pets die or are otherwise disposed of. No unit owner or lessee shall keep visiting pets in their unit. Petitioner bought Unit 206 in January 1999 and has since then lived alone in that unit with two cats. These cats have received no special training and have no special attributes. These cats were born to a cat that Petitioner and his late mother kept as a pet. Since his mother’s death in 1996, Petitioner has viewed these cats as his surrogate family. Respondent and Petitioner have engaged in a dispute regarding Petitioner’s alleged violation of its no pets policy that began in 1999 and is on-going. This dispute has involved multiple forums, with the current proceeding being the latest development. Respondent has received complaints from other residents of the condominium building that an unpleasant odor comes from Petitioner’s unit and that fleas have been found in the vicinity of his unit. On December 23, 2003, Dr. Seth Gottlieb, Petitioner’s physician, wrote the following: “To: Whom It May Concern:” William Kleinschmidt is a patient of mine. Mr. Kleinschmidt has a long-time severe physical disability and it is medically necessary that he his [sic] emotional support companion animals – his cats, to control the frequency and severity of his physical disability. By letter to Respondent’s president dated January 10, 2004, Petitioner asserted the following: While I realize that the Board and I disagree as to the interpretation of the condominium rules regarding pets, as my interpretation is based on the plain reading of the language within the common meaning of the said words, is that if a potential unit owner already has pets, they are acceptable and that no replacement pets will be brought in after the purchase. I may add that as a pre-condition to purchase of my unit, the board DID [sic] agree to my companion animals for my physical disability – the witnesses are both the buyer and the seller real estate brokers and others. I am requesting a special waiver of the pet rules as the board currently views them be made in my situation due to my disability. Please find attached a letter from my physician Seth Gottlieb, M.D., certifying that my companion animals are “medically necessary” for my disability. Please advise me in writing whether or not we have a special waiver as a reasonable accommodation. Although Respondent had been trying to force Petitioner to remove his cats from his unit since 1999, the letter of January 10, 2004, was the first time that Petitioner asserted that he was disabled and it was the first time he requested a waiver of the no pets policy to accommodate his disability. Prior to that letter, Respondent did not know and had no reason to know that Petitioner believed himself to be disabled. On April 19, 2004, Dr. Gottlieb wrote the following: “To: Whom It May Concern:” William Kleinschmidt is my patient, who has a significant emotional disability, as well as a long history of significant asthma. His asthma unfortunately has not been currently under good control. William clearly has a significant emotional component to his asthma, that is, his asthma is easily exacerbated by emotional triggers. William has companion animals which greatly help his emotional status. If he is not able to keep these companion animals there is a great likelihood that the emotional distress this will bring will significantly worsen his asthma. Therefore, it is medically necessary for William to have these emotional support animals to control the severity and frequency of his asthmatic disability. Dr. Gottlieb has no special training in psychiatry or psychology, and he did not treat or diagnose Petitioner’s anxiety. Dr. Gottlieb recommended to Petitioner that Petitioner seek professional help from a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist. Petitioner refused to follow that recommendation. Petitioner has multiple allergens, one of which is cat dander. Dr. Gottlieb recommended to Petitioner that Petitioner seek professional help from an allergist. Petitioner refused to follow that recommendation. Dr. Gottlieb’s letters of December 23, 2003, and April 19, 2004, were written at Petitioner’s request and were based on statements made to him by Petitioner and on his observations of Petitioner. Dr. Gottlieb testified that he had never known Petitioner to be without his cats and he had no way of knowing what the consequences would be if Petitioner was unable to keep his cats. Dr. Gottlieb’s testimony does not establish that it is medically necessary for Respondent to waive its no pets policy as a reasonable accommodation of Petitioner’s handicapping conditions. Petitioner is a person with a handicap within the meaning of the Acts.3 At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner has suffered from persistent asthma and emotional problems. There was no expert testimony as to the nature and extent of Petitioner’s emotional problems, but it is clear from the evidence that his emotional problems are debilitating. Petitioner is receiving no treatment for his emotional problems. Petitioner is receiving treatment from Dr. Gottlieb for his asthma. His asthma responds to medication prescribed by Dr. Gottlieb, but his asthma is not controlled by that medication and he suffers periodic asthma attacks of undetermined frequency and severity. Petitioner failed to establish that his two untrained cats are necessary for him to have equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling within the meaning of either of the Acts. Petitioner’s cats are pets and while they undoubtedly provide emotional support as any pet should, they are not service animals4 and they have no special training that would enable them to assist Petitioner to overcome limitations imposed by his handicaps. Whether Petitioner’s cats help him avoid anxiety attacks, which could, in turn, trigger an asthma attack, is speculative. Petitioner asserts that two incidents prove that Respondent harassed him and retaliated against him because of his refusal to remove his cats from his unit. The first incident occurred in 2001 while Respondent was attempting to serve Petitioner with a subpoena during an arbitration proceeding. Because Respondent had difficulty serving a subpoena on Petitioner, Respondent had the arbitrator issue an order authorizing Respondent to have a locksmith open the door to Petitioner’s unit so the subpoena could be left in the unit. On September 21, 2001, Respondent hired a locksmith who unlocked the front door to Petitioner’s unit by drilling the lock on the door. A representative of Respondent thereafter entered Petitioner’s unit and left the subpoena for Petitioner inside the unit. An armed police officer was present when the door was opened and when Respondent’s representative entered the unit, left the subpoena, and exited the unit. These events occurred before Respondent had any reason to believe that Petitioner considered himself disabled or that he considered his cats to be emotional support animals. Respondent established that it was acting on advice of counsel and pursuant to the arbitrator’s order on September 21, 2001. Petitioner failed to establish that the events of September 21, 2001, were done to harass him or retaliate against him for asserting his rights under either Act. The second incident occurred in October 2003, when Respondent failed to give Petitioner proper credit for a maintenance assessment Petitioner had made. As a result of the error, Respondent wrote Petitioner a dun letter which reminded Petitioner that the failure to pay maintenance assessments could result in the imposition of a lien against his unit. Respondent failed to properly credit Petitioner’s payment as the result of a bookkeeping error. Respondent corrected the error as soon as Respondent’s bookkeeper discovered it. Soon thereafter, Respondent provided a written explanation of the error to Petitioner and apologized to him for the error. Petitioner failed to establish that the events of October 23, 2003, were done to harass him or retaliate against him for asserting his rights under either Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of, May 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2005.
