The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful discrimination in the provision of services or facilities in connection with her dwelling based on her race or handicap, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 51-year-old black female who relocated to Leesburg, Florida, from Port Chester, New York, in February 2012. Respondent, Richman Property Services, Inc., is the corporate owner/manager of Laurel Oaks Apartments (Laurel Oaks) located at 131 Bayou Circle in Leesburg, Florida. Amy Lewis is the Community Manager of Laurel Oaks. Petitioner rented a two-bedroom apartment unit from Respondent from February 24, 2012, until she moved to Orlando, Florida, on December 3, 2012. Petitioner?s daughter, Sushon Dillard, occupied the apartment with Petitioner during her tenancy at Laurel Oaks. Petitioner spoke with Ms. Lewis via telephone to inquire regarding the availability of a unit at Laurel Oaks while Petitioner was still residing out of state. Petitioner applied for tenancy at Laurel Oaks by faxing her application to Ms. Lewis. Petitioner?s application was accompanied by a copy of her award letter documenting Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments as proof of income. On February 24, 2012, Petitioner signed a lease for Laurel Oaks unit #103, paid a security deposit, and moved into the unit. Petitioner has a current clinical diagnosis of “schizophrenia, paranoid.” She also claims to be diagnosed bi- polar with Tourrete?s Syndrome. While Petitioner presented no documentation of the additional diagnosis, her testimony on this issue is credible and is accepted by the undersigned. Petitioner was first hospitalized for treatment of an unspecified mental illness at Bellevue Hospital in New York in 1982. She apparently lived without significant incident for the next 26 years. Petitioner had a “breakdown” in 2008, while living in Arizona, and another “breakdown” that same year in New York, for which she was hospitalized at Greenwich Hospital in Connecticut, and later transferred to Stamford Hospital in Connecticut. Petitioner reports that since April 2008, she has “spent time in numerous mental institutions in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland and New York.” Petitioner?s most recent incident occurred in August 2012, while she was living at Laurel Oaks. She was taken by police to a local facility named “Life Stream” where she was treated for a number of days, then returned home to her apartment at Laurel Oaks with her daughter. Petitioner appeared calm and controlled at the final hearing. She testified that she is taking her medications and doing very well. Petitioner claims that when she moved into the unit at Laurel Oaks, it was not cleaned, was “infested with dead roaches,” and the washing machine was filthy. Petitioner?s daughter testified there were dead roaches even in the dishwasher. Petitioner also bases her allegation of discrimination on Respondent?s accusation in April 2012, that Petitioner had not paid a $300 security deposit prior to occupying her apartment. When Petitioner paid her April rent, Trifonia Bradley, an employee in the office at Laurel Oaks, informed Petitioner she still owed a $300 security deposit. Petitioner responded that she had paid the deposit on February 24, 2012. Although the evidence was not clear as to the specific date, Petitioner later met with Ms. Bradley and brought in her receipt showing the $300 had been paid in February. After that meeting, Petitioner received a phone call from Ms. Lewis apologizing for the error and stating something to the effect of “we are all good.” Petitioner believes Respondent was attempting to take advantage of her disability and trick her into paying the deposit again. At final hearing, Petitioner and her daughter presented evidence and testimony regarding additional alleged discriminatory acts by Respondent. Petitioner alleged that someone employed by, or otherwise acting on behalf of Respondent, sabotaged her automobile; harassed her by requesting her daughter fill out a separate rental application in order to live with her; harassed Petitioner about her request for accommodation based on her disability and claimed she had not demonstrated that she was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act; threatened to tow away her car because it was inoperable; and stole money from her apartment. Each of these additional alleged acts occurred after September 21, 2012, the date on which FCHR issued its determination of no cause, and was not investigated by FCHR. Petitioner is intelligent and articulate. Her exhibits were well-organized and contained copious documentation of the alleged discriminatory acts occurring after September 21, 2012. Her documentation included correspondence with Laurel Oaks? management, notices which were posted on the apartment door, copies of numerous forms and applications, and a police report. In contrast, Petitioner offered no tangible evidence regarding the condition of the property upon occupancy other than her testimony, which was not persuasive. She introduced no photographs, no written complaint, and no correspondence with the manager or other employees of Laurel Oaks regarding the condition of the apartment. In fact, she offered no evidence that she brought the condition of the unit to the attention of Laurel Oaks? management. Given the totality of the evidence, including the demeanor of the Petitioner and Ms. Dillard, the undersigned finds that either the unit was not unclean or Petitioner did not bring the condition of the unit to the attention of Laurel Oaks upon occupying the unit. Further, the undersigned finds that Laurel Oaks erroneously requested the security deposit in April 2012, and corrected the error after reviewing Petitioner?s documentation. The mistake was not an act of discrimination based either on race or disability.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2012H0289. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Suzanne Van Wyk Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by failing to reasonably accommodate her handicap, in violation of Florida?s Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of Unit No. 710 (“Unit”) in the Sixth Moorings Condominium, located in Miami, Florida. Petitioner lived there for approximately 11 years. She is not currently living in the Unit. Respondent is the condominium association responsible for the operation and management of the Sixth Moorings Condominium. In early 2010, Petitioner suffered a stroke and underwent heart surgery. It is undisputed that as a result of her illness, Petitioner is “handicapped” for purposes of the Fair Housing Act.4/ Petitioner spent several months in hospitals and nursing homes recovering from her stroke and surgeries. When she was released from these facilities, she did not resume living in the Unit. She testified that this was because she could not go up a curb or steps, and because the condominium?s elevator frequently was out of order.5/ She moved into a ground floor apartment a few blocks away from the Sixth Moorings Condominium. Petitioner is not able to perform many basic tasks, such as grocery shopping, driving, cleaning her apartment, taking out the garbage, or retrieving her mail. Consequently, she decided to invite her nephew, Charles Alsberg, to move into the Unit, where he would be only a few minutes away from the apartment in which she was residing, and thus could serve as her caretaker. Alsberg moved into the Unit in or around August 2010. Petitioner did not reside in the Unit with Alsberg. She testified that even though he is a family member, she would not live in the Unit with him because she is “an elderly woman from a different generation and [she] would not live with a young man unless he was [her] biological son.” In late 2010, Respondent?s President, John Koble, contacted Petitioner about Alsberg living in her Unit. Petitioner asked Koble to allow Alsberg to reside in the Unit so that he could serve as her caretaker, but Koble told her that because she was not residing there, Alsberg was considered an unauthorized guest in violation of the condominium?s restrictive covenants, and that he therefore must move out. Nonetheless, Alsberg continued to reside in the Unit for several more months, until he became ill and was hospitalized. Following his release in August 2011, Alsberg returned to live in the Unit. At this point, Respondent——this time, through counsel——sent Petitioner a letter stating that she was violating the restrictive covenant prohibiting unauthorized guests, and demanding that Alsberg vacate the unit. On September 13, 2011, Petitioner?s attorney sent a response letter requesting that, due to restrictions on Alsberg?s activity as a result of his illness, he be allowed to remain in the Unit for approximately 60 days. By correspondence dated September 15, 2011, Respondent agreed to allow Alsberg to remain in the Unit through November 12, 2011. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that Respondent granted her request to allow Alsberg to stay there during his recuperation. Notwithstanding this agreement, Alsberg did not vacate the Unit until sometime in early 2012, several months after the November 12, 2011 deadline. During this time, Respondent sent numerous pieces of correspondence that Petitioner characterized as “harassing” and “threatening,” regarding enforcement of the condominium?s covenants and rules. Alsberg finally vacated the Unit after Respondent sent a “final notice” letter. Currently, Alsberg is residing in an apartment approximately four blocks from Petitioner?s apartment and is serving as her caretaker. Koble testified that he was sympathetic to Petitioner?s circumstances, but it was imperative that Respondent consistently enforce the restrictive covenants for the benefit of all unit owners. Koble noted that other unit owners also wanted to allow unauthorized guests to live in their units, and that if Respondent relaxed enforcement of the covenant for Petitioner, it would be forced to do so for others. The undersigned credits this testimony. Koble also testified, credibly, that if Petitioner were residing in her unit, Respondent would have granted an accommodation of the covenant to allow Alsberg to live there for the purpose of serving as her caretaker.6/ The evidence establishes that Petitioner did not request any accommodation from Respondent that was necessary for her equal opportunity to use and enjoy the Unit; rather, the purpose of Petitioner?s request that Respondent not enforce the restrictive covenant against her was to enable her nephew to live in the Unit.
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 no unlawful discrimination by Respondent and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her religion or national origin in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Tal Simhoni ("Simhoni"), a Jewish woman who identifies the State of Israel as her place of national origin, at all times relevant to this action owned Unit No. 212 in Mimo on the Beach I Condominium (the "Condominium"), which is located in Miami Beach, Florida. She purchased this unit in 2009 and a second apartment (Unit No. 203) in 2010. Simhoni has resided at the Condominium on occasion but her primary residence, at least as of the final hearing, was in New York City. The Condominium is a relatively small community consisting of two buildings comprising 28 units. Respondent Mimo on the Beach I Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association"), a Florida nonprofit corporation, is the entity responsible for operating and managing the Condominium and, specifically, the common elements of the Condominium property. Governing the Association is a Board of Directors (the "Board"), a representative body whose three members, called "directors," are elected by the unit owners. Simhoni served on the Board for nearly seven years. From July 2010 until April 2011, she held the office of vice- president, and from April 2011 until June 1, 2017, Simhoni was the president of the Board. Simhoni's term as president was cut short when, in May 2017, she and the other two directors then serving with her on the Board were recalled by a majority vote of the Condominium's owners. The Association, while still under the control of the putatively recalled directors, rejected the vote and petitioned the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes ("DBPR"), for arbitration of the dispute. By Summary Final Order dated June 1, 2017, DBPR upheld the recall vote and ordered that Simhoni, Marisel Santana, and Carmen Duarte be removed from office, effective immediately. The run-up to the recall vote entailed a campaign of sorts to unseat Simhoni, which, as might be expected, caused friction between neighbors. Without getting into details that aren't important here, it is fair to say that, generally speaking, the bloc opposed to Simhoni believed that she had poorly managed the Condominium, especially in connection with the use of Association funds. Some of Simhoni's critics were not shy about voicing their opinions in this regard, which—— understandably——led to hard feelings. Simhoni vehemently disputes the charges of her critics and, clearly, has not gotten over her recall election defeat, which she blames on false, unfair, and anti-Semitic accusations against her. This is a case of alleged housing discrimination brought under Florida's Fair Housing Act (the "Act"). Specifically, Simhoni is traveling under section 760.23(2), Florida Statutes, which makes it "unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion." (Emphasis added). The applicable law will be discussed in greater detail below. The purpose of this brief, prefatory mention of the Act is to provide context for the findings of fact that follow. The principal goal of section 760.23(2) is to prohibit the denial of access to housing based on discriminatory animus. Simhoni, however, was not denied access to housing. She is, in fact, a homeowner. Contrary to what some might intuit, the Act is not an all-purpose anti-discrimination law or civility code; it does not purport to police personal disputes, quarrels, and feuds between neighbors, even ugly ones tinged with, e.g., racial or religious hostility. To the extent the Act authorizes charges based on alleged post-acquisition discrimination, such charges must involve the complete denial of services or facilities that are available in common to all owners as a term or condition of ownership——the right to use common areas, for example, pursuant to a declaration of condominium. Moreover, the denial of access to common services or facilities logically must result from the actions of a person or persons, or an entity, that exercises de facto or de jure control over access to the services or facilities in question. This is important because, while Simhoni believes that she was subjected to anti-Semitic slurs during her tenure as Board president, the fact is that her unfriendly neighbors——none of whom then held an office on the Board——were in no position to (and in fact did not) deny Simhoni access to common services and facilities under the Association's control, even if their opposition to her presidency were motivated by discriminatory animus (which wasn't proved). As president of the Board, Simhoni wound up on the receiving end of some uncivil and insensitive comments, and a few of her neighbors seem strongly to dislike her. Simhoni was hurt by this. That impolite, even mean, comments are not actionable as unlawful housing discrimination under section 760.23(2) is no stamp of approval; it merely reflects the relatively limited scope of the Act. Simhoni has organized her allegations of discrimination under six categories. Most of these allegations do not implicate or involve the denial of common services or facilities, and thus would not be sufficient to establish liability under the Act, even if true. For that reason, it is not necessary to make findings of fact to the granular level of detail at which the charges were made. The Mastercard Dispute. As Board president, Simhoni obtained a credit card for the Association, which she used for paying common expenses and other Association obligations such as repair costs. In applying for the card, Simhoni signed an agreement with the issuer to personally guarantee payment of the Association's account. It is unclear whether Simhoni's actions in procuring this credit card were undertaken in accordance with the Condominium's By-Laws, but there is no evidence suggesting that Simhoni was forced, encouraged, or even asked to co-sign the Association's credit agreement; she seems, rather, to have volunteered. Simhoni claims that she used personal funds to pay down the credit card balance, essentially lending money to the Association. She alleges that the Association has failed to reimburse her for these expenditures, and she attributes this nonpayment to anti-Semitism. There appears to be some dispute regarding how much money, if any, the Association actually owes Simhoni for common expenses. The merits of her claim for repayment are not relevant in this proceeding, however, because there is insufficient persuasive evidence in the record to support a finding that the Association has withheld payment based on Simhoni's religion or national origin. Equally, if not more important, is the fact that Simhoni's alleged right to reimbursement is not a housing "service" or "facility" available in common to the Condominium's owners and residents. Nonpayment of the alleged debt might constitute a breach of contract or support other causes of action at law or in equity, but these would belong to Simhoni as a creditor of the Association, not as an owner of the Condominium. In short, the Association's alleged nonpayment of the alleged debt might give Simhoni good legal grounds to sue the Association for, e.g., breach of contract or money had and received——but not for housing discrimination. The Estoppel Certificate. On September 20, 2017, when she was under contract to sell Unit No. 212, Simhoni submitted a written request to the Association for an estoppel certificate, pursuant to section 718.116(8), Florida Statutes. By statute, the Association was obligated to issue the certificate within ten business days——by October 4, 2017, in this instance. Id. The failure to timely issue an estoppel letter results in forfeiture of the right to charge a fee for preparing and delivering the certificate. § 718.116(8)(d), Fla. Stat. The Association missed the deadline, issuing the certificate one-week late, on October 11, 2017; it paid the prescribed statutory penalty for this tardiness, refunding the preparation fee to Simhoni as required. Simhoni attributes the delay to anti-Semitism. It is debatable whether the issuance of an estoppel letter is the kind of housing "service" whose deprivation, if based on religion, national origin, or another protected criterion, would support a claim for unlawful discrimination under the Act. The undersigned will assume for argument's sake that it is such a service. Simhoni's claim nonetheless fails because (i) the very statute that imposes the deadline recognizes that it will not always be met and provides a penalty for noncompliance, which the Association paid; (ii) a brief delay in the issuance of an estoppel letter is not tantamount to the complete deprivation thereof; and (iii) there is, at any rate, insufficient persuasive evidence that the minimal delay in issuing Simhoni a certificate was the result of discriminatory animus. Pest Control. Pest control is not a service that the Association is required to provide but, rather, one that may be provided at the discretion of the Board. During Simhoni's tenure as Board president, apparently at her urging, the Association arranged for a pest control service to treat all of the units for roaches, as a common expense, and the apartments were sprayed on a regular basis. If the exterminator were unable to enter a unit because, e.g., the resident was not at home when he arrived, a locksmith would be summoned to open the door, and the owner would be billed individually for this extra service. After Simhoni and her fellow directors were recalled, the new Board decided, as a cost-control measure, to discontinue the pest control service, allowing the existing contract to expire without renewal. Owners were notified that, during the phaseout, the practice of calling a locksmith would cease. If no one were home when the pest control operator showed up, the unit would not be sprayed, unless the owner had left a key with the Association or made arrangements for someone else to open his door for the exterminator. By this time, Simhoni's principal residence, as mentioned, was in New York. Although she knew that the locksmith option was no longer available, Simhoni failed to take steps to ensure that the pest control operator would have access to her apartment when she wasn't there. Consequently, Simhoni's unit was not sprayed on some (or perhaps any) occasions during the phaseout. Simhoni blames anti-Semitism for the missed pest control visits, but the greater weight of the evidence fails to support this charge. Simhoni was treated the same as everyone else in connection with the pest control service. Moreover, Simhoni was not completely deprived of access to pest control, which would have been provided to her if she had simply made arrangements to permit access to her unit. Short-term Rentals. Article XVII of the Condominium's Declaration of Condominium ("Declaration"), titled Occupancy and Use Restrictions, specifically regulates leases. Section 17.8 of the Declaration provides, among other things, that the Association must approve all leases of units in the Condominium, which leases may not be for a term of less than one year. In other words, the Declaration prohibits short-term, or vacation, rentals, which are typically for periods of days or weeks. Short-term rentals can be lucrative for owners, especially in places such as Miami Beach that attract tourists who might be interested in alternatives to traditional hotel lodgings. On the flip side, however, short-term rental activity is not necessarily welcomed by neighboring residents, who tend to regard transients as being insufficiently invested in preserving the peace, quiet, and tidy appearance of the neighborhood. At the Condominium, the question of whether or not to permit short-term rentals has divided the owners into competing camps. Simhoni is in favor of allowing short-term rentals. Accordingly, while she was Board president, the Association did not enforce the Declaration's prohibition of this activity. (It is possible, but not clear, that the Association was turning a blind eye to short-term rentals even before Simhoni became a director.) This laissez-faire approach did not sit well with everyone; indeed, dissatisfaction with short-term rentals provided at least some of the fuel for the ultimately successful recall effort that cost Simhoni her seat on the Board. After Simhoni and the rest of her Board were removed, the new directors announced their intent to enforce the Declaration's ban on short-term rentals. Simhoni alleges that the crackdown on short-term rentals was an act of religion-based housing discrimination. Her reasoning in this regard is difficult to follow, but the gist of it seems to be that the Association is selectively enforcing the ban so that only Simhoni and other Jewish owners are being forced to stop engaging in short-term rental activity; that the prohibition is having a disparate impact on Jewish owners; or that some owners are harassing Simhoni by making complaints about her to the City of Miami Beach in hopes that the City will impose fines against her for violating municipal restrictions on short-term rentals. The undersigned recognizes that a neutral policy such as the prohibition of short-term rentals conceivably could be enforced in a discriminatory manner, thus giving rise to a meritorious charge under the Act. Here, however, the evidence simply does not support Simhoni's contentions. There is insufficient evidence of disparate impact, disparate treatment, selective enforcement, harassment, or discriminatory animus in connection with the Association's restoration of the short-term rental ban. To the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Association is trying to stop short-term rentals at the Condominium for a perfectly legitimate reason, namely that a majority of the owners want section 17.8 of the Declaration to be given full force and effect. The Feud with Flores. Simhoni identifies Mr. and Ms. Flores as the worst of her antagonists among her neighbors. As advocates of the recall, these two were fierce critics of Simhoni. The Floreses reported Simhoni to the City of Miami Beach for engaging in short-term rentals without the required business tax receipt, in violation of the municipal code. At a code enforcement hearing, Mr. Flores gave Simhoni the finger. None of this, however, amounts to housing discrimination because the Floreses' actions did not completely deprive Simhoni of common facilities or services, even if such actions were motivated by anti-Semitism, which the greater weight of the evidence fails to establish. Indeed, there is no persuasive evidence that the Floreses ever had such control over the Condominium's facilities or services that they could have denied Simhoni access to them. Simhoni argues in her proposed recommended order, apparently for the first time, that the Floreses' conduct created a "hostile housing environment." Putting aside the legal problems with this belatedly raised theory, the Floreses' conduct was not sufficiently severe and pervasive, as a matter of fact, to support a "hostile environment" claim. Nor is there sufficient persuasive evidence in the record to support a finding that the Floreses acted in concert with the Board to harass Simhoni, or that the Board acquiesced to the Floreses' conduct. Roof Repairs. Simhoni alleges that the Association failed to repair the area of the roof over her unit, which she claims was damaged in Hurricane Irma, and that the Association has refused to make certain repairs inside her unit, which she asserts sustained interior water damage as a result of roof leaks. Simhoni asserts that, using Association funds, the Association not only repaired other portions of the roof, but also fixed interior damages similar to hers, for the benefit of non-Jewish owners. The greater weight of the persuasive evidence shows, however, that the roof over Simhoni's unit is not damaged, and that the Association never instructed the roofing contractor not to make needed repairs. Simhoni, in short, was not denied the service of roof repairs. As for the alleged damage to Simhoni's unit, section 7.1 of the Declaration provides that repairs to the interior of a unit are to be performed by the owner at the owner's sole cost and expense. The evidence fails to establish that the interior damage of which Simhoni complains falls outside of her duty to repair. Because this is a housing discrimination case, and not a legal or administrative proceeding to enforce the terms of the Declaration, it is neither necessary, nor would it be appropriate, for the undersigned to adjudicate fully the question of whether the Association is obligated to repair Simhoni's unit as a common expense. Here, it is sufficient to find (and it is found) that section 7.1 of the Declaration affords the Association a legitimate, nonpretextual, nondiscriminatory reason to refuse, as it has, to perform the interior repairs that Simhoni has demanded.
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 finding the Association not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Simhoni no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2019, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 2019.
The Issue Whether Petitioner showed by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in an unfair and discriminatory housing practice in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, section 760.20 et seq., Florida Statutes (2010).1/
Findings Of Fact Ms. Billingsley is an African-American woman; thus, a member of a protected class. The Housing Authority is a government entity of the City of Winter Park, Florida, that provides affordable, public assistance housing for elderly, disabled, and low-income families and individuals. Applicants for the public housing are required to fill out an application that requests information identifying the applicant's income source, Social Security number, addresses for the past five years, and the size of the apartment that the applicant is seeking to rent. The applicant is then placed on a waiting list for an available apartment. Generally, an applicant is informed that the wait for housing is between six to 12 months. The time on this waiting list can be affected by whether or not an applicant meets the criteria for a preference in granting the housing and transfers of existing tenants within the housing complex. Ms. Hinckley, the Housing Authority's executive director, credibly testified that the Housing Authority provides preferences for working families and families with disabled members. In order to qualify for a working-family preference, an applicant must have worked at least 20 hours a week for six of the last 12 months. Ms. Hinckley credibly explained that before an applicant is moved into a housing unit, the Housing Authority will conduct a home visit and verify the applicant's employment for the working preference. In addition to preferences, Ms. Hinckley explained that the amount of time an applicant is on the waiting list can be affected by transfers within the housing complex. The Housing Authority allows a family to transfer within the housing complex based on need, before accepting new families from the waiting list. For example, a family living in a two-bedroom apartment would be allowed to transfer to a larger three-bedroom apartment before an applicant from the waiting list would be allowed to move into the housing complex. On August 27, 2008, Ms. Billingsley applied with the Housing Authority for a three-bedroom apartment. She indicated in her application that she was eligible for the working-family preference. Ms. Billingsley was then placed on the waiting list and given a working-family preference. On June 2, 2009, Ms. Hinckley conducted the home visit with Ms. Billingsley concerning her application. Between December 2009 and Spring 2010, the Housing Authority began renovations of the rental unit bathrooms. During this time, the Housing Authority was unable to accommodate Ms. Billingsley for a three-bedroom apartment. Moreover, the Housing Authority honored transfers within the housing complex before offering Ms. Billingsley a housing unit. On April 9, 2010, the Housing Authority contacted Ms. Billingsley and informed her that a three-bedroom unit would be available in May of 2010. The Housing Authority then sought to verify Ms. Billingsley's working status. Unfortunately, Ms. Billingsley had recently been discharged from employment. The Housing Authority contacted Ms. Billingsley and asked her to provide proof of employment. On May 12, 2010, Ms. Billingsley informed the Housing Authority that she was not employed, but that she was looking for work. Based on the fact that Ms. Billingsley was not working at the time in late April 2010, she was no longer eligible for the working-family preference. As a result, the Housing Authority did not rent the available unit to Ms. Billingsley. Ms. Billingsley has not provided the Housing Authority with any subsequent proof of employment. Moreover, the Housing Authority has not been able to verify her recent claim that she has been employed by Toys-R-Us. Ms. Billingsley did not introduce any evidence, either direct or indirect, showing that the Housing Authority discriminated against her based on her race or that the Housing Authority had a racial preference for Hispanics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner, Fannie Billingsley's, Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2011.
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 in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his national origin or race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Manuel Rodriguez ("Rodriguez") is a middle- aged white man of (in his words) "Spanish and Italian" descent who at all times relevant lived in Vero Beach, Florida. Respondent Indian River County Habitat for Humanity, Inc. ("Habitat"), is a nonprofit charitable corporation that makes interest-free loans to qualified applicants for the purchase of affordable housing, which the buyers, in return, must help build or renovate. In or around December 2018, Rodriguez submitted a "pre- screening" application for a Habitat home. By letter dated January 3, 2019, Habitat informed Rodriguez that, according to the information he had provided, he fell "within the income guidelines." This meant that Rodriguez could progress to the next step (group orientation) of the multi-step application process. As it happened, however, he did not make it all the way. In a letter dated February 19, 2019, Habitat told Rodriguez that his application could not be approved because his monthly income was insufficient to cover the estimated debt service. Rodriguez presented no evidence at hearing suggesting that Habitat had denied his application for any reason other than the one given to him, namely that "you [Rodriguez] do not earn enough to support a mortgage." Rodriguez was not satisfied with this rationale and arranged to meet with a Habitat employee named David Willis to discuss the matter. Rodriguez believes that Mr. Willis was rude and disrespectful to him. Further, Rodriguez testified that, during their conversation, Mr. Willis used the phrase, "you people." Clearly, this is a potentially offensive remark, and Rodriguez was, in fact, offended by it. When pressed, however, Rodriguez admitted that he did not consider the comment to have been a slur against Spanish or Italian people; rather, he took it as a more focused insult——against, for example, disputatious people. In any event, there is no evidence that Mr. Willis intended to disparage an ethnic or racial group. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of Habitat's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Rodriguez, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus. Thus, 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 Habitat 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 Habitat not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Rodriguez no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2019, 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 15th day of August, 2019.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent engaged in a discriminatory housing practice by allegedly excluding Petitioner from participating in a homeowner’s meeting on January 14, 2009, or ejecting Petitioner from the meeting, based on Petitioner’s religion and alleged handicap, in violation of Section 760.37 and Subsections 760.23(2), 760.23(8), 760.23(8)(2)(b), and 784.03(1)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (2008),1 and, if not, whether Respondent is entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a condominium association defined in Section 718.103, Florida Statutes. Respondent manages a condominium development, identified in the record as Tregate East Condominiums (Tregate). Tregate is a covered multifamily dwelling within the meaning of Subsection 760.22(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a Jewish male whose age is not evidenced in the record. A preponderance of the evidence presented at the final hearing does not establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of religion, ethnicity, medical, or mental disability, or perceived disability. Rather, a preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner in the association meeting on January 14, 2009. In particular, the fact-finder reviewed the videotape of the entire meeting that took place on January 14, 2009. The meeting evidenced controversy, acrimony, and differences of opinion over issues confronting the homeowners present. However, the video tape did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on Petitioner’s religion, ethnicity, or alleged handicap. Respondent seeks attorney’s fees in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2009). Pursuant to Subsection 120.595(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), this Recommended Order finds that Petitioner has participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose. Petitioner participated in this proceeding for a frivolous purpose within the meaning of Subsection 120.595(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2009). The evidence submitted by Petitioner presented no justiciable issue of fact or law. Petitioner provided no evidence to support a finding that he suffers from a handicap defined in Subsection 760.22(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner claims to have a disability based on migraine headaches but offered no medical evidence to support a finding that Petitioner suffers from migraine headaches or any medical or mental disability. Petitioner’s testimony was vague and ambiguous, lacked precision, and was not specific as to material facts. Petitioner called four other witnesses and cross-examined Respondent’s witnesses. Petitioner’s examination of his witnesses and cross-examination of Respondent’s witnesses may be fairly summarized as consisting of comments on the answers to questions and argument with the witnesses. Petitioner repeatedly disregarded instructions from the ALJ not to argue with witnesses and not to comment on the testimony of a witness. Petitioner offered no evidence or legal authority that the alleged exclusion from the homeowners meeting on January 14, 2009, was prohibited under Florida’s Fair Housing Act.3 Petitioner offered no evidence that he is a “buyer” or “renter” of a Tregate condominium within the meaning of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes. Rather, the undisputed evidence shows that Petitioner is not a buyer or renter of a Tregate condominium. Petitioner attended the homeowners meeting on January 14, 2009, pursuant to a power of attorney executed by the owner of the condominium. If a preponderance of the evidence were to have shown that the owner’s representative had been excluded from the meeting, the harm allegedly prohibited by the Fair Housing Act would have been suffered vicariously by the condominium owner, not the non-owner and non-renter who was attending the meeting in a representative capacity for the owner. The condominium owner is not a party to this proceeding. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner has standing to bring this action. Petitioner was neither an owner nor a renter on January 14, 2009. Petitioner’s only legal right to be present at the meeting was in a representative capacity for the owner. The alleged exclusion of Petitioner was an alleged harm to the principal under the Fair Housing Act. Respondent is the prevailing party in this proceeding, and Petitioner is the non-prevailing party. Petitioner has participated in two or more similar proceedings involving Respondent. The parties resolved those proceedings through settlement. The resolution is detailed in the Determination of No Cause by the Commission and incorporated herein by this reference. Respondent seeks attorney’s fees totaling $3,412.00 and costs totaling $1,001.50. No finding is made as to the reasonableness of the attorney fees costs because Respondent did not include an hourly rate and did not submit an affidavit of fees and costs. However, the referring agency has statutory authority to award fees costs in the final order pursuant to Subsection 760.11(7), Florida Statutes.
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 and requiring Petitioner to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in the amounts to be determined by the Commission after hearing further evidence on fees and costs in accordance with Subsection 760.11(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent, in providing housing or related services to Petitioner, failed to make reasonable accommodations for Petitioner’s disability.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation doing business pursuant to chapter 718, Florida Statutes, as Daytona Beach Riverhouse Condominium Association. Respondent is responsible for the day-to-day operations and management of Daytona Beach Riverside Condominiums. In May 2009, Petitioner rented Daytona Beach Riverhouse Condominium Unit B-103 from a third party who owns the unit. In that same month, Petitioner signed an application for lease/purchase with Respondent, which contains an acknowledgment of his receipt of the condominium association’s rules and regulations, declaration of condominium, and by-laws. There is also a pet registration form attached to the application which identifies one pet, a Jack Russell named “Peanut.” See Exhibit P-1. Petitioner alleges that he has a brain injury that requires him to have a dog as a service animal to assist him in his daily living. At the final hearing, Petitioner provided his own testimony to support his claim of a brain injury and need for a service dog. Petitioner’s testimony in that regard was unrebutted and is therefore credited. In addition, Respondent’s manager, Mary Cash, acknowledged receiving a letter from Petitioner’s doctor advising that Petitioner had a brain injury and needed a service dog. Petitioner otherwise, however, failed to prove the allegations of the Complaint. According to the Complaint, Respondent failed to make reasonable accommodation by refusing to allow Petitioner to use his two service animals (dogs) required because of Petitioner’s disability. At the final hearing, Petitioner did not submit any evidence indicating that Respondent failed to allow him to have one or more service dogs. Instead, Petitioner admitted that he lives in the condominium with two dogs, a service dog and a pet. Rather than submitting evidence in support of his Complaint, during the final hearing, Petitioner testified that Respondent, through employees, discriminated against him by harassing his dogs, entering his condominium unit without his permission, and moving or hiding his personal property within the unit. According to Petitioner, the personal property that Respondent moved in his condominium included his medications, a showerhead, a light in his dining room, and one of his dogs that he later found shut inside his walk-in closet. Respondent, through the testimony of Mary Cash, denied the allegations of the Complaint and testified that none of Respondent’s agents or employees had ever entered Petitioner’s condominium without his permission or moved any of Petitioner’s personal property. The testimony of the other witnesses besides Petitioner corroborated Mary Cash’s testimony. Mary Cash’s testimony is credited over Petitioner’s. While Petitioner may have believed that Respondent was harassing his dogs and going into his apartment, the undersigned finds that Petitioner’s testimony in that regard was based on mere speculation. Other than his own testimony, Petitioner did not present any witness or evidence which supported his allegations against Respondent. The letter dated May 21, 2010, from Mary Cash to Petitioner, is written on behalf of Respondent. The letter discussed issues related to Petitioner’s two dogs causing disturbances. The letter also notified Petitioner that Respondent did not have a key to his top door lock and did not have a telephone number to reach Petitioner. The letter does not support the Complaint or any other allegation raised by Petitioner in this proceeding. In sum, Petitioner failed to submit evidence to support of his claim that Respondent failed to make reasonable accommodation for his disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2011, 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 25th day of March, 2011. 1/ Mary Cash is Respondent’s manager. At the final hearing, Ms. Cash testified on behalf of Respondent. 2/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2010 version. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry McIntire 719 South Beach Street, B-103 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 D. Michael Clower, Esquire 322 Silver Beach Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 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 issues in this case are, one, whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his national origin, religion, or handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act; and, two, whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to acts of intimidation, coercion, or retaliation as a result of Petitioner's exercise, or attempted exercise, of a protected housing right.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner William Kleinschmidt ("Kleinschmidt") owns a unit in the Three Horizons North Condominium. He purchased his condominium in 1999 and has resided there continuously since that time. Respondent Three Horizons North Condominiums, Inc. ("Three Horizons"), manages the property of which Kleinschmidt's condominium is a part. Kleinschmidt and Three Horizons have been involved in a long-standing feud stemming from Kleinschmidt's possession of cats in violation of the condominium's "no pets" policy. Three Horizons has tried since 1999 to compel Kleinschmidt's compliance with the "no pets" policy. The dispute over Kleinschmidt's cats came to a head last year, when a formal administrative hearing was held on Kleinschmidt's first housing discrimination complaint against Respondent. See Kleinschmidt v. Three Horizons Condominium, Inc., 2005 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 883, DOAH Case No. 04-3873 (May 25, 2005), adopted in toto, FCHR Order No. 05-097 (Fla.Com'n Hum.Rel. Aug. 23, 2005)(Kleinschmidt I). Among other allegations, Petitioner charged in Kleinschmidt I that Three Horizons had unlawfully refused to waive the "no pets" policy to permit his possession of "service animals" (i.e. cats) as an accommodation of his emotional handicap. Kleinschmidt lost that case. Kleinschmidt presently alleges that Three Horizons has discriminated against him on the basis of handicap, national origin, and religion. The undersigned has had some difficulty making sense of Kleinschmidt's allegations. As far as the undersigned can tell, Kleinschmidt alleges that: (1) members of the condominium association's board of directors (and especially the board's treasurer, Ruth Pearson, whose German ancestry Kleinschmidt assumes makes her a Nazi sympathizer hostile to Jewish persons such as himself) have made disparaging comments about him; (2) when he applied to purchase his condominium back in 1999, Three Horizons charged him a $100 screening fee, which should have been only $75; (3) Three Horizon's agents illegally broke into his unit on September 21, 2000, and again on September 21, 2001, stealing personal property each time; (4) before he purchased his unit, Three Horizons agreed to waive the "no pets" policy, which agreement Respondent now refuses to honor; and (5) Three Horizons has engaged in ongoing (but unspecified) acts of intimidation, coercion, and retaliation. There is not a shred of competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could possibly be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Three Horizons did not commit any prohibited act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding Three Horizons not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Kleinschmidt no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 21st day of November, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioner in the provision of housing, or services in connection therewith, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (“the Act”).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Pedro Tamayo, suffers from anxiety, depression, memory loss, and complex regional pain syndrome (“RPD”). Respondent, Avtec, is a residential construction contractor, doing business in Palm Bay, Florida. On November 10, 2018, Petitioner executed a Contract for Sale and Purchase (“Contract”) with Avtec to construct a residential structure on property owned by Petitioner on Raleigh Road Southeast in Palm Bay, Florida. The specific floor plan chosen by Petitioner was the Citation 4 Plus. Avtec executed the Contract on November 12, 2018. The Contract covers clearing of property for construction, materials and color selections by the buyer, and the buyer’s right to reverse the floor plan, among other terms. When Petitioner entered into the Contract, he simultaneously chose many of the options available to customize the Citation 4 Plus, such as impact windows, an exterior pedestrian door in the garage, and a front septic system. Among the options Petitioner chose was 36-inch (36”) doors for the master bedroom entrance, closet, and master bathroom entrance. Petitioner has no obvious physical disability and does not require use of a wheelchair or walker. Construction Setback The Contract does not address the construction setbacks from the property lines. Setbacks are governed by local government codes and Avtec is required to follow those codes. On November 30, 2018, Petitioner met with his sales agent, Sean McCarry, at the Avtec showroom, to discuss some of the options he had chosen for his new home. They specifically discussed plumbing issues for the master bathroom, 36” wide doors in the master bedroom, placement of the septic tank, the concrete culverts for the driveway, and a 45-foot (45’) setback of the home from the property line. While the standard setback for a home with a front septic tank is 38’ to 40’, Petitioner indicated he wanted to build an aluminum carport, which required additional setback footage. Respondent Amicucci stepped into the meeting with Petitioner and Mr. McCarry to address Petitioner’s request for mitered ends on the culvert pipe. Mr. Amicucci was not present when Petitioner requested a 45’ setback. Mr. McCarry verbally agreed to “take care of” the setback requested by Petitioner. Petitioner’s selection of 36” doorways for the master bedroom, and a front septic system were reduced to writing and included in the Contract, signed by both parties, as an Option to Sales Agreement. Petitioner executed five addenda to the Contract between November 30, 2018, and May 1, 2019, including optional upgrades and a modification to the design of the sidewalk. On July 23, 2019, Petitioner and Avtec executed a change order to include the mitered ends of the culvert pipe. No part of the Contract, any addenda thereto, or any change order, addresses Petitioner’s request for a 45’ setback. Section 28 of the Contract provides that “NO OTHER AGREEMENTS exist between the BUYER and SELLER except as set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be modified except by an instrument in writing executed by both BUYER and SELLER.” Section 29 of the Contract contains the following statement in red underlined text: No representative of Seller has authority to make any verbal statements that modify or change the terms or conditions of this contract. Buyer represents that buyer has read and understands this entire contract. Buyer also represents that buyer is not relying on any verbal statement, promise, or condition not specifically set forth in this contract. It is acknowledged that builder is relying on these representations and would not enter into this contract without this understanding. Section 20 of the Contract specifically provides, “Once the rough plumbing is installed, absolutely NO CHANGES will be allowed.” Petitioner’s new home was built 40’ from the property line, rather than 45’ as Petitioner requested. Sometime after the rough plumbing was installed and the foundation was poured, Petitioner complained to Avtec that his home was not built with a 45’ setback as promised by Mr. McCarry. On August 22, 2019, Avtec, through its Director of Corporate Development, responded in writing to Petitioner’s complaint. Avtec apologized that the home was not built to the setback he had communicated to Mr. McCarry, and referred to the Contract terms that exclude any verbal agreements. Avtec offered to release Petitioner from his contract, refund his deposit of $6,250, and give Petitioner $30,000 for the property after selling it to another buyer. On November 13, 2019, Petitioner signed a “Final Acceptance of Completion” of the construction of his home. Fill Dirt On March 8, 2019, Petitioner drove by the construction site and noted that the fill dirt being used was “contaminated” with tree branches and other material. He drove to the model home to discuss the issue with Mr. McCarry. Mr. McCarry contacted Mr. Amicucci, who agreed to meet Petitioner at the property to inspect the fill and address Petitioner’s concerns. Petitioner and Mr. Amicucci testified to two very different versions of the events at the construction site that day. Petitioner testified that, when Mr. Amicucci arrived, he got out of his vehicle, visibly upset, and raised his voice and cursed at Petitioner regarding his lack of knowledge of proper fill material. Petitioner testified, specifically that: I feared that [Mr. Amicucci] would physically attack me by his aggressive demeanor and I immediately froze. I could not comprehend how a paying customer could be treated this way by raising concerns for the foundation of my home. I am not a builder. [Mr. Amicucci] simply needed to explain the common practice of standard fill. Since March 8th, 2019, my quality of life has not been the same. I have severe anxiety due to the memories of that day and suffer constant nightmares. I feel as [sic] my life can be in danger and, therefore, live in a state of high alert. My daily life has been disrupted. Simply having to drive by Avtec showroom due to my normal routine routes triggers flashbacks of that day. Mr. Amicucci testified that when he arrived at the property, Petitioner was upset and aggressive toward him, demanding that the fill be removed from his property. Mr. Amicucci reassured Petitioner that the fill was all good soil and that it would be root-raked before it was spread for the foundation. Mr. Amicucci explained the root-raking process and the equipment used therefor. Nevertheless, Petitioner insisted that Mr. Amicucci go with him to another construction site to show him the type of fill he wanted used on his property. Mr. Amicucci accompanied Petitioner to the specific construction site, which was not an Avtec project, and Mr. Amicucci identified the fill being used there as a hard white shell material. Mr. Amicucci assured Petitioner that the brown sandy soil imported to his property would be better for the sod and plants Petitioner would be using to landscape the property. Mr. Amicucci testified that, at the end of the meeting, Petitioner extended his hand and said, “[l]ook, that all sounds good. I just want to start back over. Are we good?” Mr. Amicucci shook Petitioner’s hand and assured him that they “were good.” Mr. Amicucci’s testimony regarding the events that occurred on March 8, 2019, is accepted as more credible and reliable than Petitioner’s. Knowledge of Petitioner’s Disability Mr. Amicucci testified that he was not aware that Petitioner had any kind of disability until the Complaint was filed against him and Avtec. Petitioner testified that his disability was revealed to Mr. Amicucci on November 30, 2018, during a meeting at the Avtec showroom to discuss the various options selected by Petitioner when he signed the contract. Petitioner testified that Mr. Amicucci asked him what he did for a living and Petitioner told him that he was retired and disabled from the City of Hialeah. He testified that Mr. Amicucci was further on notice because Petitioner always wears a glove to improve circulation in his right hand and that he can hardly sign his name, which would have been apparent to Mr. Amicucci at the November 30, 2018 meeting. Finally, Petitioner alleges Mr. Amicucci should have been aware of his disability because he requested 36” ADA-compliant door widths for the master bedroom. Mr. Amicucci did not recall Petitioner telling him he was disabled or seeing Petitioner wearing a glove. He did recall seeing Petitioner wearing a sling of some sort and inquiring whether he had been injured. He recalled Petitioner telling him it was related to an old injury. Mr. Amicucci was not present for any discussion about the 36” doorways. Assuming, arguendo, that he was present for that discussion, a request for 36” doorways alone is not proof of a disability. Many buyers upgrade to larger doorways to accommodate larger furniture or in anticipation of needing a walker or wheelchair access in the future. Furthermore, requesting ADA-compliant doorways is irrelevant to Petitioner’s claim that he has emotional disabilities and chronic pain. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Amicucci knew of Petitioner’s disabilities of anxiety, depression, memory loss, and RPD. No other witness was offered on behalf of Avtec. There is no evidence to support a finding that Avtec had knowledge of Petitioner’s disability through any other employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petition for Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice No. 202022149. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Mike Amicucci Suite 3 590 Malabar Road Palm Bay, Florida 32909 Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Pedro Tamayo 987 Raleigh Road Southeast Palm Bay, Florida 32909 (eServed) Rebecca E. Rhoden, Esquire Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. 215 North Eola Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Lawrence F. Sietsma Avtec Homes, Inc. et al 2860 North Riverside Drive Indialantic, Florida 32903 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
