17-005290 Imre Beke vs. Erika And Friedrich Roth Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, May 11, 2018.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents discriminated against him on the basis of national origin.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IMRE BEKE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 17 - 5290

ERIKA AND FRIEDRICH ROTH,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Purs uant to notice, a final hearing in this cause was

held by video teleconference between sites in Sarasota and

Tallahassee, Florida, on April 1 2 , 2018, before Linzie F. Bogan,

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Imre Beke, pro se

No. 225

13624 Tamiami Trail

North Port, Florida 34287

For Respondent s : Gary Parker, Esquire

Legal Aid of Manasota

Suite 302

1900 Main Street

Sarasota, Florida 34236

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondents, in their capacity as PetitionerÓs

landlord, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by calling

him a gypsy during the course of eviction proceedings resulting

from Petitio nerÓs alleged irregular payment of rent.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about July 24, 2017, Imre Beke (Petitioner) filed a

Housing Discrimination Complaint with the Florida Commission on

Human Relations (FCHR), which alleges that Erika and Friedrich

Roth (Re spondents) violated section 760.23(3), Florida Statutes

(2016) , 1/ by discriminati ng against him on the basis of n ational

o rigin. The allegations were investigated, and on August 18,

2017, FCHR issued its Determination: No Cause. A Petition for

Relief wa s filed by Petitioner on September 21, 2017. On

September 21, 2017, FCHR transmitted the case to the Division of

Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for assignment of an

administrative law judge to conduct a final hearing.

The Complaint alleges, in part, tha t Respondents made

disparaging remarks about his national o rigin Ðcalling

Complainant Òsleazeball,Ó and Ògypsy,Ó as well as Òcigany,Ó a

derogatory remark meaning gypsy,Ñ and that Respondents attempted

to evict him based on false accusations of past due ren t.

ComplainantÓs ultimate allegation of fact is that he Ðbelieves he

is being subjected to [d]iscriminatory [t]erms and [c]onditions,

as well as [d]iscriminatory [s]tatements based on his National

Origin.Ñ FCHR determined that there was no cause to belie ve that

acts taken by Respondents Ðwere based on National Origin.Ñ

Allegations of national o rigin discrimination are the only issues

before the undersigned.

During the final hearing, Petitioner testified on his own

behalf and offered testimony from Stepha nie Merlino.

Respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Roth , each testified and no other

witnesses testified on their behalf. PetitionerÓs composite

Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence. RespondentsÓ Exhibits A

through E were admitted into evidence.

A transcript of th e final hearing was not filed. Petitioner

and Respondents each filed a Proposed Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant was born in the eastern European country of

Hungary. Complainant is not licensed to practice law in the

United States. C omplainant has, however, practiced international

law in Europe.

2. Respondents were each born in Yugoslavia. Respondents

reside at 12306 Alta Mira Street, North Port, Florida. Several

years ago Respondents established a family trust, and through

this trust Respondents manage d property owned by the trust , which

is located at 12308 Alta Mira Street, North Port, Florida (Trust

Property).

3. Sometime around June 2016, Respondents entered into an

oral agreement with Petitioner for the rental of the Trust

P roperty. The parties agreed that $900 would be the amount due

for rent on the 25th day of each month during the duration of the

tenancy. It is undisputed that Respondents, at the inception of

the landlord/tenant relationship with Petitioner, knew of

Peti tionerÓs Hungarian ancestry.

4. The first few months of the partiesÓ landlord/tenant

relationship were uneventful. However, around October 2016, the

partiesÓ otherwise cordial relationship began to deteriorate.

Petitioner offered no explanation as to wh y the relationship

dy namics changed, but Respondents attribute the change to the

fact that it was around this time when Petitioner either started

paying rent late, or not at all. Petitioner admits that at

times, his rent was paid late.

5. Respondents, pr ior to renting to Petitioner, had never

rented the Trust Property, and credibly testified that they were

unfamiliar with the requirements of the laws of Florida for

evicting a tenant. Respondents explained that given their

unfamiliarity with landlord/tena nt law, they conducted research

on the internet which led them to conclude that in order to evict

Petitioner they needed to give him written notice to vacate the

property.

6. By notice dated December 7, 2016, Respondents provided a

ÐNotice to QuitÑ to Pet itioner and stated therein that Petitioner

Ðwas only to stay here until he finds a place to stay, [and] he

was told already last month he has to leave, [and] now he wants

an eviction notice.Ñ

7. On or about December 8, 2016, Respondents posted on the

door of the Trust Property a ÐThree - Day NoticeÑ demanding that

Petitioner vacate the property or pay Respondents $2,325 for past

due rent, electric and cleaning expenses. The amount of $1,800

was alleged as being owed for past - due rent.

8. On or about Decem ber 14, 2016, Respondents posted

another ÐThree - Day NoticeÑ on the door of the Trust Property and

demanded from Petitioner an additional $100 for ÐcleaningÑ and

another $100 for Ðelectric,Ñ thus bringing the total claim to

$2,525.

9. Petitioner , in respon se to RespondentsÓ repeated demands

to vacate the Trust Property, continued to reside on the premises

and wrote Respondent several letters which outlined his legal

rights as a tenant. Respondents became frustrated with

Petitioner and believed that he was taking advantage of them by

not paying his rent in a manner consistent with their oral

agreement. In furtherance of their feelings of frustration,

Respondents temporarily turned the lights off in the Trust

Property, and temporarily locked Petitioner out o f the premises.

10. On December 22, 2016, Respondents filed a Complaint for

Eviction against Petitioner and alleged therein that ÐDefendant

failed to pay the rent due [for] November & December, 2016.Ñ

11. By Order entered January 25, 2016, County Judge

Phyllis R. Galen, County Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit,

in and for Sarasota County, Florida, di rected Petitioner to pay

$2,250 into the registry of the c ourt for the accrued rent of

$450 for November 2016, $900 for December 2016, and $900 for

Janua ry 2017.

12. Following a final hearing, Judge Galen, by Order

entered May 15, 2017, directed that $2,250 be awarded to

Petitioner as Ða refund of rent and an award damagesÑ for

November 2016 ($450), December 2016 ($900), and January 2017

($900). Addition al registry funds were also returned to

Petitioner for the period Ma y 8 through May 25, 2017. The

c ourtÓs Order is silent as to the rationale for returning these

registry funds to Petitioner. 2 /

13. Section 83.60(2), Florida Statutes (2016), provides, in

part, that Ð[i]n an action by the landlord for possession of a

dwelling unit, if the tenant interposes any defense other than

payment, the tenant shall pay into the registry of the court the

accrued rent as alleged in the complaint or as determined by the

court and rent which accrues during the pendency of the

proceeding, when due . . . .Ñ

14. While it is true that Petitioner was eventually given a

rent refund in the amount of $450 for the month of November 2016,

the evidence establishes that on or about D ecember 8, 2016, when

Respondents first posted the three - day notice on the door of the

Trust Property, there was a colorable claim for rent owed by

Petitioner for November 2016 as reflected in Judge GalenÓs Order

directing that these funds be placed in the registry of the

court.

15. Mr. Roth admits that in PetitionerÓs presence, he

verbally referred to Petitioner as a gypsy, in both English and

Hungarian (cigany), and that his use of the term(s) occurred when

Petitioner was not timely making his rent payme nts. The evidence

is inconclusive regarding the number of times that Mr. Roth

referred to Petitioner as a gypsy. As used by Mr. Roth, the word

Ðgypsy (cigany)Ñ was meant to disparage Petitioner based on

PetitionerÓs ethnicity and nation of origin.

16. R espondentsÓ decision to evict Petitioner was motivated

by PetitionerÓs failure to pay his rent in accordance with the

terms of the agreement and not because of reasons related to

PetitionerÓs national origin.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

17. DOAH has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in

this proceeding. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), and 760.20 - 760.37, Fla.

Stat. (2017).

18. FloridaÓs Fair Housing Act (Act) is codified in

sections 760.20 through 760.37.

19. Among other things, the Act makes certain acts

Ðdiscrimi natory housing practicesÑ and gives the FCHR the

authority, if it finds that a Ðdiscriminatory housing practiceÑ

has occurred, to issue an order Ðprohibiting the practiceÑ a nd

provide Ðaffirmative relief from the effects of the practice,

including quantifi able damages and reasonable attorneyÓs fees and

costs.Ñ £ 760.35(3)(b), Fla. Stat.

20. The essence of the Complaint filed by Petitioner is

that Respondents called Petitioner a gypsy and attempted to have

him evicted from the rental dwelling as a pretext for national

origin discrimination.

21. Section 760.34(5) provides that Petitioner bears the

burden of proof.

22. Section 760.23(3) provides that it is unlawful to make

Ðany . . . statement . . . with respect to the . . . rental of a

dwelling that i ndicates any preference, limitation, or

discrimination based on . . . national origin . . . or an

intention to make any such preference, limitation, or

discrimination.Ñ

23. While it is true that Mr. RothÓs use of the word gypsy

was intended to disparage P etitioner during the partiesÓ

landlord/tenant dispute, the evidence does not establish that

Mr. RothÓs bias against gypsies (either perceived or actual) was

the basis for the decision to evict Petitioner from the Trust

Property. See generally , Straughn v . Delta Air Lines, Inc. , 250

F.3d 23, 36 (1st Cir. 2001)(mere fact that remark may be

probative of speakerÓs bias does mean remark is probative of

pretext). Succinctly stated, Petitioner failed to prove that

Mr. RothÓs bias against gypsies, and the fact that he perceived

Petitioner as such, motivated the decision to evict Petitioner

from the Trust Property. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of

proof.

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 PetitionerÓs Petition

for Relief and the allegations of discrimination contained

therein.

DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2018 , in Tallahassee,

Leon County, Florida.

S

LINZIE F. BOGAN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 11th day of May, 2018 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ All subsequent references to Florida Statutes will be to 2016,

unless otherwise indicated.

2 / Judge Galen also ordered that registry funds for the months of

February 2017, March 2017, and April 25 through May 8, 2017, be

given to Respondents.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

Imre Beke

No. 225

13624 Tamiami Trail

North Port, Florida 34287

(eServed)

Gary Parker, Esquire

Legal Aid of Manasota

Suite 302

1900 Main Street

Sarasota, Florida 34236

(eServed)

Erika Roth

12306 Alta Mira Street

North Port, Florida 34287

Friedrich Roth

12306 Alta Mira Street

North Port, Florida 34287

Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the rig ht 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.