16-003951 Alicia Valentine vs. Catholic Charities Of The Archdiocese Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, December 7, 2016.

Summary: Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of her race or sex in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ALICIA VALENTINE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 16 - 3951

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE

ARCHDIOCESE,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case came before Ad ministrative Law Judge John G.

Van Laningham for final hearing by video teleconference on

November 3, 2016, at sites in Tallahassee and Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Alicia Valentine, pro se

211 South Clark Street, Suite A33 82

Chicago, Illinois 60690

For Respondent: Thomas H. Courtney, Esquire

J. Patrick Fitzgerald & Associates, P.A.

110 Merrick Way, Suite 3 - B

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully

discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race or sex

in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

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

D epartment of Housing and Urban Development on or around March 7,

2016, and subsequently investigated by the Florida Commission on

Human Relations ("FCHR"), Petitioner Alicia Valentine alleged

that Respondent Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami,

Inc., a charitable organization, had unlawfully discriminated

against her on the basis of race or sex by refusing to give her

rental assistance under the same terms and conditions applicable

to others who sought such relief.

The FCHR investigated Ms. Valen tine's claims and, on June 9,

2016, issued a notice setting forth its determination that

reasonable cause did not exist to believe that a discriminatory

housing practice had occurred. Thereafter, Ms. Valentine filed a

Petition for Relief, which the FCHR t ransmitted to the Division

of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") on June 12, 2016.

After a continuance requested by Ms. Valentine, the final

hearing took place on November 3, 2016. Ms. Valentine appeared

by telephone and testified on her own behalf. She al so

submitted, via email, dozens of emails, which were received into

evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 over Respondent's

hearsay objections. In its case, Respondent called an employee

named Rosanna Taveras as a witness. Respondent's Exhibits A, D,

and E were admitted into evidence as well.

The final hearing was transcribed, but neither party ordered

a transcript of the proceeding. Each side submitted a proposed

recommended order before the deadline established at the

conclusion of the hearing, which was November 14, 2016.

Unless otherwise indicated, citations to the Florida

Statutes refer to the 2016 Florida Statutes.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. Petitioner Alicia Valentine ("Valentine") is an African -

American woman who currently resides in Chicago but lived in

Miami, Florida, at all relevant times.

2. Respondent Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of

Miami, Inc. ("Catholic Charities"), is a Florida nonprofit

corporation that provides social services in Miami - Dade, Broward,

and Monroe c ounties. At no time relevant to this action did

Catholic Charities sell, lease, rent, finance, broker, or manage

real property, including dwellings of any nature.

3. At all relevant times, Valentine leased Apartment

No. 1410 at 1451 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, for the sum

of $2,000.00 per month from her landlord, Park Place at Brickell,

LLC.

4. Before contacting Catholic Charities and setting in

motion the events that led to this action, Valentine had lost her

job, exhausted her unemployment compensation paymen ts, and wound

up having no income. Unable to pay rent, Valentine applied to

Catholic Charities, on or around January 27, 2016, for emergency

rental assistance to avoid losing her apartment.

5. Catholic Charities runs an Emergency Services program

that pr ovides cash payments to individuals to help them pay one

month's rent in crisis situations. The program limits rental

assistance to a single payment of up to $1,000.00 per applicant,

which may be received only once every 12 months.

6. Catholic Charities has written eligibility criteria that

an applicant must satisfy to qualify for emergency rental

assistance. The eligibility criteria require that the applicant

have an eviction notice; justification of need; proof of income

(showing ability to continue pa ying the rent after assistance);

some form of identification; and a Social Security card.

7. Catholic Charities denied Valentine's request for

emergency rental assistance because she failed to meet all of the

eligibility requirements. Specifically, Valen tine did not

provide an eviction notice, nor, perhaps more important, did she

provide proof of income. Thus, Valentine failed to demonstrate

that she had the ability to pay the balance of her $2,000.00

monthly rent ÏÏ or any subsequent month's rent ÏÏ if prov ided the

maximum $1,000.00 in emergency assistance.

8. It is undisputed, moreover, that Valentine never

personally appeared at Catholic Charities' office to verify her

identity, although, in fairness to Valentine, there is some

uncertainty as to whether C atholic Charities communicated to

Valentine that she was required to provide proof of

identification in person. The fact that Valentine did not appear

in person to verify her identity is, however, ultimately

immaterial, for even if she had, her applicatio n still would have

been denied based on the failure to satisfy other eligibility

criteria, e.g., proof of sufficient future income.

Determinations of Ultimate Fact

9. There is no persuasive evidence that any of Catholic

Charities' decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Valentine,

directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by

discriminatory animus directed toward Valentine.

10. There is no persuasive evidence that Valentine met the

written eligibility criteria for emergency rental assistance.

1 1. There is no persuasive evidence that Catholic Charities

sold, leased, rented, financed, or managed real property.

12. There is competent, persuasive evidence that Valentine

did not qualify for emergency rental assistance and was denied on

that basis.

13. In sum, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in

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

sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made.

Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Catholic Charities

did not com mit any prohibited act.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

14. DOAH has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in

this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes.

15. Under the Florida Fair Housing Act ("FFHA"),

sections 760.20 through 760 .37, Florida Statutes, it is unlawful

to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing. Valentine's

allegations of housing discrimination based on race and sex

implicate section 760.23(2), which states:

It is 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). This pro vision of the FFHA is nearly identical

to, and clearly patterned after, section 804(b) of the federal

Fair Housing Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).

16. It is beyond dispute that Catholic Charities was not

engaged in selling or leasing dwellings; thus, Catho lic Charities

could be liable to Valentine only for the discriminatory

provision (or withholding) of facilities or services to (or from)

Valentine in connection with her purchase or rental of a

dwelling. As found above, Valentine sought from Catholic

Char ities a gift in the form of financial assistance to pay rent.

A gift of money is plainly not a "facility." To have a legally

cognizable claim, therefore, Valentine must establish that

Catholic Charities held out to her a housing - related "service."

17. T he undersigned concludes that a financial gift made by

(or potentially available from) a charitable organization is not

a "service" under section 760.23(2), even if the purpose of the

gift is to enable the recipient to pay his or her rent. The

"connection " in such situations between the gift and the

recipient's housing is simply too attenuated to justify extending

the FFHA's protections to a person seeking the charitable

organization's help. Cf. Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass'n v.

Glendening , 174 F.3d 18 0, 102 - 93 (4th Cir. 1999)(The Fair Housing

Act does not reach every event that might conceivably affect the

availability of housing). Valentine's claim fails as a matter of

law.

18. Even if her claim were legally sufficient, however,

Valentine has failed to prove her charge. In cases involving a

claim of housing discrimination, the complainant has the initial

burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination by a

preponderance of the evidence. Generally speaking, a prima facie

case comprises circum stantial evidence of discriminatory animus,

such as proof that the charged party treated persons outside of

the protected class, who were otherwise similarly situated, more

favorably than the complainant was treated. 1/ Failure to

establish a prima facie c ase of discrimination ends the inquiry.

See Ratliff v. State , 666 So. 2d 1008, 1012 n.6 (Fla. 1st DCA),

aff'd , 679 So. 2d 1183 (1996)(citing Arnold v. Burger Queen Sys. ,

509 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)).

19. If, however, the complainant sufficiently es tablishes a

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

articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its

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

complainant must establish by a preponderance of the evi dence

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

a pretext for discrimination. See Massaro v. Mainlands Section 1

& 2 Civic Ass'n, Inc. , 3 F.3d 1472, 1476 n.6 (11th Cir. 1993),

cert. denied , 513 U.S. 808, 115 S. Ct. 56, 130 L. Ed. 2 d 15

(1994)("Fair housing discrimination cases are subject to the

three - part test articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green ,

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

U.S. Dep't of HUD, on behalf of Herron v. Blackwell , 908 F.2 d

864, 870 (11th Cir. 1990)("We agree with the ALJ that the three -

part burden of proof test developed in McDonnell Douglas [for

claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act] governs

in this case [involving a claim of discrimination in violation o f

the federal Fair Housing Act].").

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

Valentine needed to show that she: (1) belong ed to a protected

class; (2) was qualified to receive the services in question;

(3) was denied the services by Catholic Charities; and (4) was

treated less favorably by Catholic Charities than were similarly -

situated persons outside of the protected class. See, e.g. ,

Jackson v. Comberg , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66405, 15 (M.D. Fla.

Aug. 22, 2006).

21. It is undisputed that Valentine is a n African - American

woman who belongs to protected classes and was denied the

financial assistance she sought from Catholic Charities. Beyond

that, Valentine failed to prove any of the facts required to

establish a prima facie case of discri mination on the basis of

race or sex.

22. The failure to establish a prima facie case of

discrimination ended the inquiry. The burden never shifted to

Catholic Charities to articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons for its conduct, but it did so a nyway. Plainly stated,

Valentine did not meet the written eligibility standards for

emergency rental assistance under the Catholic Charities '

criteria and was denied on that basis. There was no

discrimination involved.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoi ng Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the F lorida Commission on Human

Relations enter a final order finding Catholic Charities not

liable for housing discrimination and awarding Valentine no

relief.

DONE AND ENTERED this 7th da y of December , 2016 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

( 850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 7th day of December , 2016 .

ENDNOTE

1/ Alternatively, the complainant's burden may be satisfied with

direct evidence of di scriminatory intent. See Trans World

Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston , 469 U.S. 111, 121, 105 S. Ct. 613,

621, 83 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1985)("[T]he McDonnell Douglas test is

inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of

discrimination" inasmuch as "[t] he shifting burdens of proof set

forth in McDonnell Douglas are designed to assure that the

'plaintiff [has] his day in court despite the unavailability of

direct evidence.'").

COPIES FURNISHED:

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

4075 Esplanade Way , Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Alicia Valentine

211 South Clark Street, Suite A3382

Chicago, Illinois 60690

(eServed)

Thomas H. Courtney, Esquire

J. Patrick Fitzgerald & Associates, P.A.

110 Merrick Way, Su ite 3 - B

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

(eServed)

Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

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 with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.