19-002791 Manuel Rodriguez vs. Indian River County Habitat For Humanity, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, August 15, 2019.

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

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MANUEL RODRIGUEZ ,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 1 9 - 279 1

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HABITAT FOR

HUMANITY, INC. ,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case came before Administrative Law Judge John G.

Van Laningham for final hearing by video teleconference on

July 3 0 , 201 9 , at sites in Tallahassee and Sebastian , Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Manuel Rodriguez , pro se

2330 10th Road Southwest , Apartment 10

Vero Beach , Florida 32692

For Respondent: C. Douglas Vitunac , Esquire

Collins Brown Barkett, Chartered

756 Beachland Boulevard

Vero Beach , Florida 32963

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully

discriminated against Petitioner on the b asis of his national

origin or race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In a Housing Discrimination Complaint filed with the Florida

Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR") on or around July 24 ,

201 8 , Petitioner Manuel Rodriguez alleged that Respondent Indian

River County Habitat for Humanity , Inc., a nonprofit charitable

corporation , had unlawfully discriminated against him on the

basis of national origin or race by refusing to lend him money to

purchase an affordable h ome under the same terms and conditions

applicable to others.

The FCHR investigated Mr. Rodriguez 's claims , and, on May 7 ,

201 9 , issued a notice setting forth its determination that

reasonable cause did not exist to believe that a discriminatory

housing pr actice had occurred. Thereafter, Mr. Rodriguez filed a

Petition for Relief, which the FCHR transmitted to the Division

of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") on May 2 3 , 201 9 .

T he final hearing took place on July 30 , 201 9 .

Mr. Rodriguez testified on his own behalf. H e also submitted

Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 6, 8, 9, and 10, which were received

into evidence. Respondent rested without presenting evidence .

The final hearing was transcribed, but neither party ordered

a transcript of the proceeding. Respondent filed a P roposed

R ecommended O rder within the time frame , which ended on August 9,

2019, established a t the conclusion of the hearing .

Unless otherwise indicated, citations to the Florida

Statutes refer to the 201 9 Florida Statutes.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. 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.

2. 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 re turn, must

help build or renovate.

3. In or around December 2018, Rodriguez submitted a "pre -

sc reening" 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 (gr oup orientation) of the multi - step application

process.

4. 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 insu fficient 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

mortga ge."

5. 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,

durin g 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 slu r against Spanish or Italian people; rather, he took it

as a more focused insult ÏÏ 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

6 . 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.

7 . Thus , there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the

r ecord, 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.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

8 . DOAH has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in

this proceeding pursuant to sections 760.35, 120.569, and

120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

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

sections 760.20 through 760.37 , it is unlawful to discriminate in

the sale or rental of h ousing. Rodriguez's allegations of

housing discrimination based on national origin or race implicate

section 760.23 , which states , in 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 unavailable 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 the provision of services or facilities

in connection therewith, because of race,

color, national origin, sex, handicap,

familial status, or religion.

Th ese provision s of the FFHA are nearly identical to, a nd are

clearly patterned after, section s 804 (a) and 804 (b) of the

federal Fair Housing Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604.

1 0 . In cases involving a claim of housing discrimination,

the complainant has the initial burden of proving a prima facie

case of discrimina tion by a preponderance of the evidence.

Generally speaking, a prima facie case comprises circumstantial

evidence of discriminatory animus, such as proof that the charged

party treated persons outside of the protected class, who were

otherwise similarly s ituated, more favorably than the complainant

was treated. 1 / Failure to establish a prima facie case 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)).

1 1 . If, however, the complainant sufficiently establishes a

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

articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its

action. If the charg ed party satisfies this burden, then the

complainant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence

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. 2d 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.2d

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 of

the federal Fair Housing Act].").

1 2. To make out a prima facie case of discrimination,

Rodriguez needed to show that he: (1) belong ed to a protected

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

(3) was denied the services by Habitat ; and (4) was treated less

favorably by Habitat than were similarly - situated persons outside

of the protected class. See, e.g. , Jackson v. Comberg , 2006 U.S.

Di st. LEXIS 66405, 15 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2006).

1 3 . It is undisputed that Rodriguez belongs to a protected

class and was not approved to purchase a Habitat home . Beyond

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

establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of

national origin or race .

14 . The failure to establish a prima facie case of

discrimination ended the inquiry. The burden never shifted to

Habitat to articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for

its co nduct, but it did so anyway. Plainly stated, Rodriguez's

reported income failed to satisfy the debt - service coverage ratio

that Habitat requires for a successful application, and he was

denied on that basis. There was no discrimination involved.

RECOMMEN DATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

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

Relations enter a final order finding Habitat not liable for

housing discrimination and awarding Rodriguez no relief.

DONE AND ENT ERED this 15th day of August , 201 9 , 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 , 201 9 .

ENDNOTE

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

direct evidence of discriminatory 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

inapplic able 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:

Manuel Rodriguez

2330 10th Road Southwest, Apartment 10

Vero Beach, Florida 32692

C. Douglas Vitunac, Esquire

Collins Brown Barkett, Chartered

756 Beachland Boulevard

Vero Beach, Florida 32963

(eServed)

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Cheyanne Costilla, Gener al 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.