09-001240 Diane Scott vs. Monroe County Housing Authority
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, July 14, 2009.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's refusual to renew her apartment lease was based in any way on her race.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8DIANE SCOTT, )

11)

12Petitioner, )

14)

15vs. ) Case No. 09-1240

20)

21MONROE COUNTY HOUSING )

25AUTHORITY, )

27)

28Respondent. )

30)

31RECOMMENDED ORDER

33Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

44before Larry J. Sartin, an Administrative Law Judge of the

54Division of Administrative Hearings, on June 22, 2009, in

63Marathon, Florida.

65APPEARANCES

66For Petitioner: Diane Scott, pro se

72637 92nd Street Ocean

76Marathon, Florida 33050

79For Respondent: Franklin D. Greenman, Esquire

85Greenman & Manz

885800 Overseas Highway, Suite 40

93Marathon, Florida 33050

96STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

100The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Monroe County

110Housing Authority, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner,

116Diane Scott, on the basis of her race in violation of the

128Florida Fair Housing Act.

132PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

134In a Housing Discrimination Complaint filed with the U.S.

143Department of Housing and Urban Development in January 2009, and

153subsequently investigated by the Florida Commission on Human

161Relations (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”),

168Petitioner, who is a black female, charged that Respondent had

178unlawfully discriminated against her by refusing to renew her

187lease. The Commission investigated Petitioner's claim and, on

195February 17, 2009, issued a notice setting forth its

204determination that reasonable cause did not exist to believe

213that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred.

220In response to the Commission’s determination, Petitioner

227filed a Petition for Relief, which the Commission filed with the

238Division of Administrative Hearings on March 10, 2009. The

247Petition for Relief was designated DOAH Case No. 09-1240, and

257was assigned to the undersigned.

262By Notice of Hearing issued March 23, 2009, the matter was

273scheduled to be heard on May 27, 2009. The final hearing was

285subsequently rescheduled for June 22, 2009, by Order Re-

294Scheduling Hearing entered April 1, 2009. The hearing was re-

304scheduled in order to reduce the costs of travelling to

314Marathon.

315At the final hearing, Petitioner testified on her own

324behalf and presented the testimony of Arlene Heller, a former

334neighbor of Petitioner, and Kenneth Scott, Petitioner’s husband.

342Petitioner also had 39 Exhibits admitted without objection.

350Respondent presented the testimony of Jesus Manuel Castillo,

358Sr., Respondent’s Executive Director. Respondent also had

365admitted Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 13, 15 through 27, 35,

375and 52 through 63.

379No court reporter was provided by the Commission.

387Therefore, no final hearing transcript has been filed.

395At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were given

405ten days to file post-hearing argument. Petitioner filed a

414Proposed Recommended Order on July 1, 2009. Counsel for

423Respondent represented that Respondent would not be filing any

432post-hearing submittal. Petitioner’s submittal has been fully

439considered.

440Unless otherwise indicated, citations to the Florida

447Statutes refer to the 2008 Florida Statutes.

454FINDINGS OF FACT

4571. Petitioner Diane Scott is a black women. Her husband,

467Kenneth Scott, who lives with her, is a black man.

4772. Respondent Monroe County Housing Authority (hereinafter

484referred to as the "Housing Authority") is responsible for

494providing low income and affordable rental apartments in Monroe

503County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “County”), a

512political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Housing

521Authority is responsible for the Section 8 Housing Choice

530Voucher Program.

5323. Ms. Scott and her husband (hereinafter referred jointly

541as the “Scotts”), are former residents of apartment number 23

551(hereinafter referred to as the “Apartment”), Tropical Isle

559Apartments, one of the Housing Authority’s housing developments,

567located at 260 41st Street, Marathon, Florida. The Scotts

576rented the Apartment pursuant to an Affordable Housing

584Residential Lease Agreement entered into on March 1, 2007

593(hereinafter referred to as the “Lease”). The Lease provided

602for a one-year rental period.

6074. As the Scotts readily admitted at hearing, Ms. Scott

617has raised numerous complaints with the Housing Authority

625concerning matters ranging from drug sales and use at Tropical

635Isle Apartments, which door maintenance personnel should utilize

643to enter the Apartment, and, most recently, the employment of an

654individual with a criminal record at Tropical Isle Apartments.

663Ms. Scott’s complaints, which were made in person, by telephone,

673and by email, were numerous and extremely time-consuming to deal

683with by personnel of the Housing Authority. Efforts to respond

693to Ms. Scott’s complaints more often than not did not satisfy

704her.

7055. By letter dated January 23, 2008 (hereinafter referred

714to as the “Notice of Violation”), the Scotts were informed that

725Ms. Scott’s conduct constituted a violation of the Lease and

735that if it continued, could result in termination of the Lease

746(why the letter was signed by Charla Rodriguez, Director of

756Operations, The Housing Authority of the City of Key West,

766Florida, was not explained at hearing).

7726. Jesus Manuel Castillo, Sr., Executive Director of the

781Housing Authority, met with the Scotts on February 28, 2008, to

792discuss the Notice of Violation and determined that the Notice

802had been properly issued.

8067. Ms. Scott’s behavior did not improve. Consequently, by

815letter dated October 30, 2008, Susan E. Vogt, Housing Manager

825for Tropical Isle Apartments, informed the Scotts that their

834Lease would not be renewed and that, therefore, their Lease

844would expire effective January 12, 2009. Ms. Vogt’s more than

854four-page letter described in some detail the events which had

864led to the decision to not renew the Scotts’ Lease.

8748. The decision to not renew the Scotts’ Lease was made by

886Mr. Castillo, Sr. Mr. Castillo had met with Ms. Scott on more

898than one occasion and had been the recipient of her emails and

910telephone calls and was well aware of the time and effort staff

922had to expend dealing with Ms. Scott’s complaints.

9309. Mr. Castillo, on behalf of the Housing Authority,

939decided to not renew the Scotts’ lease, rather than evicting

949them so that the Scotts would be able to continue to receive a

962Section 8 voucher.

96510. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the

974record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any

984sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made. Even the

994Scotts admitted at hearing that their lease was not renewed

1004primarily because of Ms. Scott’s continuous complaints, adding

1012that they “believed it was also because of their race.” Even

1023Ms. Scott’s Proposed Recommended Order fails to mention how her

1033race played any part in her treatment by the Housing Authority.

1044Ultimately it is determined that the Housing Authority did not

1054commit any prohibited act vis-à-vis Ms. Scott.

1061CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

106411. The Division of Administrative Hearings has personal

1072and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to

1081Sections 120.569, and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

108712. Under the Florida Fair Housing Act (hereinafter

1095referred to as the "FFHA"), it is unlawful to discriminate in

1107the sale or rental of housing. Although Ms. Scott has not

1118identified the particular provisions of the FFHA under which she

1128purports to travel, it is reasonably clear that she is

1138attempting to assert discrimination claims pursuant to Section

1146760.23, Florida Statutes.

114913. Upon examination of the specific acts of unlawful

1158discrimination and other prohibited practices enumerated in

1165Section 760.23, it is concluded that the following provisions

1174are or might be implicated by Ms. Scott’s allegations:

1183(1) It is unlawful to refuse to sell or

1192rent after the making of a bona fide offer,

1201to refuse to negotiate for the sale or

1209rental of, or otherwise to make unavailable

1216or deny a dwelling to any person because of

1225race, color, national origin, sex, handicap,

1231familial status, or religion.

1235(2) It is unlawful to discriminate

1241against any person in the terms, conditions,

1248or privileges of sale or rental of a

1256dwelling, or in the provision of services or

1264facilities in connection therewith, because

1269of race, color, national origin, sex,

1275handicap, familial status, or religion.

1280. . . .

128414. In cases involving a claim of housing discrimination,

1293the complainant has the initial burden of proving a prima facie

1304case of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence.

1313Generally speaking, a prima facie case comprises circumstantial

1321evidence of discriminatory animus, such as proof that the

1330charged party treated persons outside of the protected class,

1339who were otherwise similarly situated, more favorably than the

1348complainant was treated. Failure to establish a prima facie

1357case of discrimination ends the inquiry. See Ratliff v. State ,

1367666 So. 2d 1008, 1012 n.6 (Fla. 1st DCA), aff'd , 679 So. 2d 1183

1381(1996)( citing Arnold v. Burger Queen Systems , 509 So. 2d 958

1392(Fla. 2d DCA 1987)).

139615. If, however, the complainant sufficiently establishes

1403a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the charged party

1415to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its

1423action. If the charged party satisfies this burden, then the

1433complainant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence

1442that the reason asserted by the charged party is, in fact,

1453merely a pretext for discrimination. See Massaro v. Mainlands

1462Section 1 & 2 Civic Ass'n, Inc. , 3 F.3d 1472, 1476 n.6 (11th

1475Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 808, 115 S. Ct. 56, 130 L.

1488Ed. 2d 15 (1994)("Fair housing discrimination cases are subject

1498to the three-part test articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

1508Green , 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973).");

1523Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, on

1532Behalf of Herron v. Blackwell , 908 F.2d 864, 870 (11th Cir.

15431990)("We agree with the ALJ that the three-part burden of proof

1555test developed in McDonnell Douglas [for claims brought under

1564Title VII of the Civil Rights Act] governs in this case

1575[involving a claim of discrimination in violation of the federal

1585Fair Housing Act].").

158916. To make out a prima facie case of discrimination,

1599Ms. Scott needed to show that she: (1) belongs to a protected

1611class; (2) is qualified to rent an available apartment or

1621receive the services in question; (3) was denied the apartment

1631or services by the Housing Authority; and (4) was treated less

1642favorably by the Housing Authority than were similarly situated

1651persons outside of the protected class. See , e.g. , Jackson v.

1661Comberg , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66405, *15 (M.D.Fla. Aug. 22,

16712006).

167217. It is undisputed that Ms. Scott met the first three

1683elements of a prima facie case . She failed to prove, however,

1695that she was treated less favorably by the Housing Authority

1705than similarly situated persons outside her protected class.

171318. Had Ms. Scott presented a prima facie case of

1723discrimination, which she did not, the Housing Authority met its

1733burden by proving that the refusal to renew the Scotts’ Lease

1744was based upon a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. The

1752Housing Authority’s proof was not countered by Ms. Scott with

1762evidence that the reason asserted by the Housing Authority for

1772refusing to renew the Scotts’ Lease was, in fact, merely a

1783pretext for discrimination.

1786RECOMMENDATION

1787Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

1797Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human

1807Relations enter a final order finding the Monroe County Housing

1817Authority not liable for housing discrimination and awarding

1825Ms. Scott no relief.

1829DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2009, in

1839Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

1843LARRY J. SARTIN

1846Administrative Law Judge

1849Division of Administrative Hearings

1853The DeSoto Building

18561230 Apalachee Parkway

1859Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

1862(850) 488-9675

1864Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

1868www.doah.state.fl.us

1869Filed with the Clerk of the

1875Division of Administrative Hearings

1879this 14th day of July, 2009.

1885COPIES FURNISHED :

1888J. Manuel Castillo, Sr.

1892Monroe County Housing Authority

18961400 Kennedy Drive

1899Key West, Florida 33040

1903Diane Scott

1905Post Office Box 501586

1909Marathon, Florida 33050

1912Franklin D. Greenman, Esquire

1916Greenman, Manz & Ables

1920Gulfside Village, Suite 40

19245800 Overseas Highway

1927Marathon, Florida 33050

1930Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

1934Florida Commission on Human Relations

19392009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

1944Tallahassee, Florida 32301

1947Larry Kranert, General Counsel

1951Florida Commission on Human Relations

19562009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

1961Tallahassee, Florida 32301

1964NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

1970All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

198015 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

1991to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

2002will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 12/15/2009
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 12/15/2009
Proceedings: (Amended) Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/14/2009
Proceedings: Exceptions filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/23/2009
Proceedings: Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/22/2009
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held June 22, 2009). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 07/01/2009
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 06/22/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance with Pre-hearing Instructions (with attachments) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2009
Proceedings: Denial of Housing Discrimination Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance with Pre-hearing Instructions filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/15/2009
Proceedings: (Petitioner's) Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2009
Proceedings: (Petitioner`s Request for) Subpoenas filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/06/2009
Proceedings: Certified Return Receipt received this date from the U.S. Postal Service.
PDF:
Date: 04/01/2009
Proceedings: Certified Mail Receipts stamped this date by the U.S. Postal Service.
PDF:
Date: 04/01/2009
Proceedings: Order Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for June 22, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Marathon, FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2009
Proceedings: Certified Return Receipt received this date from the U.S. Postal Service.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (of F. Greenman) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2009
Proceedings: Certified Mail Receipts stamped this date by the U.S. Postal Service.
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2009
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 27, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Marathon, FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2009
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2009
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2009
Proceedings: Housing Discrimination Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2009
Proceedings: Determination filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Determination of No Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2009
Proceedings: Petition for Relief filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2009
Proceedings: Transmittal of Petition filed by the Agency.

Case Information

Judge:
LARRY J. SARTIN
Date Filed:
03/10/2009
Date Assignment:
03/10/2009
Last Docket Entry:
12/15/2009
Location:
Marathon, Florida
District:
Southern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):