12-001552 Mattie Lomax vs. Citrus Health Network, Inc., And Jose Garcia, Administrator Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, July 9, 2012.

Summary: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving a discriminatory housing practice occurred.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MATTIE LOMAX , )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 12 - 1552

)

CITRUS HEALTH NETWORK, INC., )

AND JOSE GARCIA, ADMINISTRATOR )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMEND ED ORDER

This case came before Administrative Law Judge June C.

McKinney of the Division of Administrative Hearings for final

hearing on June 7, 2012, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Mattie Lomax , pro se

Apartmen t N umber One

212 Northwest 15th Street

Miami, Florida 33136

For Respondent: Olga Golik, Esquire

Citrus Health Network, Inc.

4175 West 20th Avenue , Third Floor

Hialeah, Florida 33 012 - 5875

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether a discriminatory housing practice occurred against

P etitioner by Citrus Health Network Inc. , and Jose Garcia .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In a Housing Discrimination Complaint , filed on

December 21, 2011, and subsequently investigated by the Florida

Commission on Human Relations ( " Commission " ) , Mattie Lomax

( " Petitioner " or " Lomax " ) charged that Citrus Health Network,

Inc., and Jose Garcia, Administrator ( " Respondent s " or " Citrus " )

unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by not providing

additional financial assistance to her and by not return ing her

calls during her application process.

The Commission investigated Petitioner ' s claim and on

March 12, 2012, issued a notice sett ing forth its determination

that reasonable cause did not exist to believe that a

discriminatory housing practice had occurred. Thereafter ,

Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief, which the C ommission

sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings ( " DOAH " ) on

April 27, 2012 .

At the final hearing, Lomax testified on her own behalf and

presented six witnesses : James Errol and Valarie Errol

(Petitioner ' s landlords); Alberto Abella (Housing Inspector);

Jose Garcia (Citrus Health Program Administrator for HA ND

program); G e orge Mensah (City of Miami Di rector of Community

Development ); and Maria Bringas ( Citrus Health Service

Coordinator for HAND program) . Petitioner ' s Composite E xhibit 1

was admitted in to evidence and the late - f iled e xhibit has also

been admi tted into evidence as Exhibit 2. Respondent presented

the testimony of Jose Garcia. Respondent ' s E xhibit 1 was

offered and received into evidence.

The hearing was recorded but was not transcribed. On

July 15, 2012, Lomax filed a Retroactive Petition fo r Relief

( " Petition " ) , to which her late - filed composite Exhibit 2 was

attached. On July 27, 2012, Respondent filed Respondent ' s

Motion to Dismiss Retroactive Petition against Respondent

( " Motion " ). The undersigned has reviewed Petitioner ' s Petition

and determined that it is Lomax ' s Proposed Recommended Order.

Accordingly, Respondent ' s Motion is denied. Hence, b oth parties

filed timely P roposed R ecommended O rders , which have been duly

considered in preparation of this Recommended O rder .

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Lomax is a black female who lived at 125 N orthwest 15th

Street, L ower Level, Miami, Florida ( " old residence " ) .

2. Lomax ' s disability income is $1 , 291.99 monthly.

3. From January 2011 to September 2011, Lomax did not pay

any rent at her old residence , even though there was no

interruption in her income. Lomax was going to be evicted

because t he building was in foreclosure and had been neglected

by the property owner.

4. T he Housing Assistance Network of Dade ( " HAND " ) is a

program that helps prevent people from becoming homeless. The

program is funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development. The grant is awarded to the City of

Miami who subcontracts with Citrus to operate the HAND program.

5. On or about August 11, 2011 , Lomax sought financial

assistance for housing by applying to the HAND program for first

and last month rent. Lomax was assigned a case manager , Robert

Butler ( " Butler " ) , to process her application.

6. During the application process, Lomax tried to talk to

and meet with HAND program administrators about her application

instead of working with her case manager. Lomax was able to

speak to Maria Bringas ( " Bringas " ) , the Citrus Health Service

Coordinator for the HAND Program. Lomax did n o t like Bringas '

de meanor and requested that she speak to her supervisor Jose

Garcia ( " Garcia " ) . Lomax talked to Garcia afterwards.

7. Even though Butler was processing Lomax ' s application,

Lomax called Citrus numerous time s and felt she should have ha d

more communication with the administration during the process .

8. The HAND program does not have a working site. It is

community based and set up whereby applicants work with case

managers in the field. The level of assistance provided to

participants is based on the inco me level.

9. The HAND p rogram evalu ated Lomax and determined that

s he was qualified to be approved for the program.

10. Lomax found new rental accommodations from James and

Valarie Errol .

11. On or about September 2, 2011, Citrus sent Alberto

Abella ( " A bella " ) to inspect Lomax ' s prospective rental unit for

habitability and determined the property was above standards.

Abella provided his report, a HUD requirement, to Citrus as part

of Lomax ' s application process.

12. Citrus processed Lomax application e xpeditiously in

less than 10 days and helped Lomax obtain new housing at 212

Northwest 15th S treet, Miami, Florida 33136 , ( " new home " ) by

approving her application and providing her first month ' s rent

so that she could move into the new residence upon evic tion and

never be homeless .

13. Lomax was trans itioned straight from the eviction of

the old residence to a stable housing situation with Citrus '

assistance of first month ' s rent for her new home .

14. Lomax was not satisfied with the level of assistance

that she received from the HAND program and appealed to receive

the last month ' s rent she had originally requested .

15. As a result of Lomax ' s first appeal, Citrus denied her

request but had its attorney call Lomax ' s new landlord and

negotiate d a plan for Lomax to pay her rent for the last month

in installments instead of all upfront.

16. Lomax still was not satisfied with her level of

assistance and filed a second grievance to the funder, t he City

of Miami , for more funding. The city denied her request after

determin ing she had not lost any income prior to her eviction .

17. Lomax protested the denial , alleging she had been

financially caring for the property where she had been residing

by paying the maintenance services like plumbing and lawn care ,

and that is why she didn ' t have the savings from her monthly

income where she had n o t paid rent. The City of Miami agreed to

reconsider Lomax ' s appeal for more assistance and r equested she

provide maintenance receipts to document her maintenance

payments.

18. The City of Miami reviewed the receipts Lomax provided

and determined Lomax did not provide the right receipts for the

City of Miami to provide additional funding to her. It was

determined that Lomax did not demonstrate that she lacked

financial resourc es needed to pay her last month ' s rent.

Therefore, the City of Miami denied her grievance appeal .

19. Lomax filed a discrimination case against Citrus with

the Commission because she believes that the reason she was not

provided last month 's rental assis tance was because of her race

and sex. Lomax felt that Citrus ' administration was racist,

hateful and offensive , and the administrators did not return her

calls during the application process.

20. From October 1, 2010, to October 1, 2011, Citrus

provided financial assistance to 1,146 individuals without

regard to race, sex , or ethnicity. African Americans make up

576 (51 percent) of the persons served. Hispanic/Latinos make

up 554 (49 percent) of the persons served. Females make up 64

percent of the to tal adults served. A majority of the

individuals served have a lower income than the Petitioner.

21. A t the time of the hearing, Lomax still resided in her

new home she obtained with the financial assistance of first

month ' s rent from the HAND program.

C ONCLUSIONS OF LAW

22. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

proceeding and of the parties pursuant to s ections 120.569 and

120.57(1), Florida Statutes .

23. Under Florida ' s Fair Housing Act, sections 760.20

through 760.37, it is unlawful t o discriminate in the sale or

rental of housing. Section 760.23 states, i n pertinent part:

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

after the making of a bona fide offer, to

refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental

of, or otherwise to make unavailab le or deny

a dwelling to any person because of race,

color, national origin, sex, handicap,

familial status, or religion.

(2) It is unlawful to discriminate against

any person in the terms, conditions, or

privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling,

or in t he provision of services or

facilities in connection therewith, because

of race, color, national origin, sex,

handicap, familial status, or religion.

24. As the person complaining of discrimination

in this administrative proceeding, Lomax has the

burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence

that s he was discriminated against by Citrus on the

basis of her race , sex, and handicap . See § 760.34(5)

( " In any proceeding brought pursuant to t his section

[ s ection 760.34] or section 760.35, the burden of

proof is on the complainant " ).

25. In evaluating housing discrimination claims, courts

have applied the burden - shifting analysis developed in McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 - 804 (1973), as later

refined in Texas Department of Communit y Affairs v. Burdine , 450

U.S. 248, 252 - 253 (1981). Under this approach, Lomax must first

make a prima facie case for discrimination.

26. A prima facie showing of housing discrimination simply

requires Lomax to show that she was ready, able , and willing to

continue her residency at the house; that she was a member of a

protected class; and that her application denied ( or, in the

present case, that financial services of last month's rent

requested were denied by Respondents ) . See Soules v. U.S. Dep ' t

of H ous. & Urban Dev. , 967 F.2d 817, 822 (2d Cir. 1992). Lomax ,

a b lack female , is a member of a protected class. However, she

presented no evidence that she was entitled to last month ' s rent

or additional financial a ssistance than what was provided, o r

that s he was treated less favorably by the Respondent than

similarly situated persons outside of her protected class.

27. In fact, the evidence showed that Lomax talked to

administration during her application process, and was assisted

by Citrus expeditiously with first month ' s rent , which

specifically allowed Lomax to obtain a new residency after she

was evicted and prevented her from becoming homeless. Further,

Lomax remain ed in the new ho me at the time of the hearing.

28. Had Lomax met her burden of proof , the burden then

would have then shift ed to Citrus to show that the action it

took was based on a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. See

St. Mary ' s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks , 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993).

However, t here is no evidence that Citrus discriminated against

Lomax . Therefore, there is no need to shift the burden of proof

in this case.

29. It should also be noted that Lomax did not present a

scintilla of evidence concerning discrimination by the

Respondents . At hearing, Petitioner also failed to add ress or

present any evidence of gender or handicap discrimination.

Therefore, those issues have not been addressed in this matter.

And, Citrus did provide evidence as to its treatment of other

HAND program applicants , but the evidence was unnecessary due to

Lomax ' s failure to establish a prima facie case. Accordingly,

Petitioner ' s claims are without merit.

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 ' s Petition

for Relief filed by Mattie Lomax in its entirety.

DONE AND ENTERED this 9 th day of July , 20 1 2 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

JUNE C. McKINNEY

Administrative Law Ju dge

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 9 th day of July , 201 2 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Suite 100

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

[e-mail]

Lawrence F. Kranert, General Counsel

Florida Commissio n on Human Relations

Suite 100

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Olga Maria Golik, Esquire

Citrus Health Network, Inc.

4175 West 20th Avenue, Thir d Floor

Hialeah, Florida 33012

[e-mail]

Mattie Lomax

Apartment Number 1

212 Northwest 15th Street

Miami, Florida 33136

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order should be filed wit h the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.