20-001041 Evelyn Chandler vs. Fort Walton Beach Housing Authority, Et Al Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, July 16, 2020.

Summary: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she requested a reasonable accommodation or that Respondent was on notice of her need for a reasonable accomodation.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

E VELYN C HANDLER ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 20 - 1041

F ORT W ALTON B EACH H OUSING

A UTHORITY , E T A L ,

Respondent .

/

R ECO MMENDED O RDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was conducted via

Zoom before Administrative Law Judge Garnett W. Chisenhall of the

Division of Administrative Hearings (ÑDOAHÒ), on May 28, 2020.

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Evelyn Chandl er, pro se

65D 8 th Avenue

Shalimar, Florida 32579

For Respondent: Jennifer H anson Copus, Esquire

Copus & Copus, P.A.

25 Wal ter Martin Road Northeast , Suite 200

Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

The issue is whether Respondent violated the Florida Fair Housing Act

(Ñthe ActÒ) by failing to provide Petitioner with a reasona ble accommodation

or by subjecting her to disparate treatment.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

Evelyn Chandler filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on

Human Relations (Ñthe CommissionÒ) on November 29, 2018, alleging that

the Fort Walton Beach Housing Aut hority (ÑHousing AuthorityÒ)

discriminated against her because of a disability. The substance of her

complaint, as described by the Commission, was that Shelia Gordon, a case

manager for the Housing Authority, notified her in January of 2018 :

[A] bout an u pcoming inspection of her unit in

February 2018. [Ms. Chandler] alleges she

informed Respondent Gordon that she was

suffering from a physical disability [ ] 1 and

requested a reasonable accommodation to delay her

inspection. [Ms. Chandler] stated she explai ned to

Respondent Gordon that she was requesting the

delay to allow her enough time to recover from her

disability and prepare the home for an inspection.

[Ms. Chandler] alleges Respondent Gordon denied

her accommodation request. As a result, [Ms.

Chandler ] failed her inspection on or about

February 15, 2018, lost her housing voucher and

was eventually evicted from the subject property

because she was unable to make rental payments.

[Ms. Chandler] believes the [Housing Authority and

Ms. Gordon] collectively discriminated against her

based on disability in violation of the [A]ct.

After conducting an investigation, the Commission issued a

Determination on January 28, 2020, concluding there was no reasonable

cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred. W hile

the Commission found that Ms. Chandler was disabled within the meaning of

the Act, it also found that she did not put the Housing Authority on notice of

her disability. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that no discriminato ry

housing practice had occurred.

1 Rather than disputing that Ms. Chandler had a disability, the Housing Authority argued it

was not on notice of her disability. Therefore, describing the nature of Ms . ChandlerÔs

disability herein is unnecessary.

Ms. Chandler filed a Petition for Relief on February 24, 2020, and the

Commission referred this matter to DOAH for a formal administrative

hearing on February 26, 2020.

The final hearing took place as scheduled on M ay 28, 2020. Ms. Chandler

testified on her own behalf, and PetitionerÔs Exhibits 2 through 9 were

accepted into evidence. The Housing Authority presented testimony from

Sheila Gordon, and RespondentÔs Exhibits A through Q were accepted into

evidence. The u ndersigned granted the Housing AuthorityÔs Motion to take

official recognition of documents from a case that had been before the

Okaloosa County Court, and those documents are collectively designated as

RespondentÔs Exhibit R.

The final hearing T ranscript was filed on June 18, 2020, and the Housing

Authority filed a timely Proposed Recommended Order on June 25, 2020.

Ms. Chandler did not file a proposed recommended order.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whol e, the

following Findings of Fact are made:

1. Congress established the Section 8 Housing Program (ÑSection 8Ò) in

1974 as part of the Housing and Community Development Act. Section 8

Ñauthorizes a number of distinct programs to aid lower - income families i n

obtaining a decent place to live and to promote economically mixed housing.Ò

Drake v. Pierce , 691 F.Supp. 264, 266 - 67 (W.D. Wash. 1998). Under the

Section 8 program, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (ÑHUDÒ) enters into con tracts with public housing authorities

Ñto make housing assistance payments to owners of existing dwelling units on

behalf of eligible low - income families.Ò Id. Public housing authorities accept

applications, determine a familyÔs eligibility, maintain wait lists, and select

participants. Id.

2. The Housing Authority operates a Section 8 housing program. After an

initial certification, a Housing Authority client must annually recertify his or

her continuing eligibility for the program. That is accomplished by disclosing

information about oneÔs current financial status and submitting to a home

inspection so that the Housing Authority can verify that the residence in

question continues to satisfy HUD standards.

3. The Housing Authority conducts recertifi cation by having multiple

clients simultaneously visit its office in order to complete the required

paperwork. The Housing Authority also conducts individual meetings so that

confidential matters can be discussed. While clients can contact their

assigned c ase worker at any time, the recertification process affords them an

opportunity to notify the Housing Authority of any changes in their

circumstances, such as changes in health or employment status.

4. Clients with a disability are eligible to receive ad ditional benefits from

the Housing Authority, and the Housing Authority only requires a letter from

the clientÔs treating physician as proof of a disability. 2

5. The Housing Authority does not offer relocation assistance.

6. Ms. Chandler is 61 years o ld. In January of 2006, she began living in a

house in Mary Esther, Florida with the Housing Authority subsidizing a

portion of her rent.

2 Sheila Gordon, a case manager with the Housing Authority, testified that when the

Housing Authority learns that a client might be disabled, Ñ[w]e ask for some type of

documentation and go right to the f ile. We try to make it clear that the documentation that

they provide simply has to come from someone who has the power and the authority and the

responsibility to make the diagnosis; simply to write that to the best of their professional

ability they reco gnize there is a disability. And we tell them at that time that it is not

necessary, nor is it wanted that the actual diagnosis be divulged to us. You simply have to

say IÔm disabled and you verify that with . . . your physician.Ò

7. Ms. Chandler was diagnosed in 2016 with a condition that would

constitute a ÑdisabilityÒ under the Act . 3

8. Ms. C handler acknowledged receiving written notifications of her right

to request a reasonable accommodation on January 8, 2015, January 7, 2016,

and January 5, 2017. However, there is nothing in the Housing AuthorityÔs

files indicating Ms. Chandler ever reques ted a reasonable accommodation.

9. The Housing Authority notified Ms. Chandler in November of 2017 that

she was due for recertification and that a home inspection would be

conducted on January 2, 2018 . When Adrianne Carr from the Housing

Authority arriv ed at Ms. ChandlerÔs residence 4 to conduct the inspection,

Ms. Chandler refused to allow Ms. Carr to enter because Ms. Chandler had

been ill and unable to prepare for the inspection. 5 Nevertheless, Ms. Carr

inspected the outside of the residence and gave it a failing grade due to a

nonfunctional porch light. Ms. CarrÔs inspection report also noted there was a

Ñtremendous amount of Ò clutter in the home that impeded entry and exit.

10. The Housing Authority notified Ms. ChandlerÔs landlord, Randy Dean,

of the failed inspection via a letter dated January 11, 2018. The letter also

stated that the Housing AuthorityÔs payments to Mr. Dean would be abated

beginning February 1, 2018. During this abatement period, Mr. Dean could

not charge Ms. Chandler for the Housing AuthorityÔs portion of the rent.

The letter further stated that the abatement would end if Mr. Dean made the

necessary repairs and the residence passed an inspection by February 23,

2018. Finally, the Housing Authority stated that its contract with Mr. Dean

would be terminated if the repairs were not completed by February 27, 2018.

3 Ms. Chandler began re ceiving disability payments in July of 2018.

4 At that time, Ms. Chandler was sharing her residence with two of her daughters and three

grandchildren. One of her daughters has Downs Syndrome.

5 Ms. Chandler did not provide the Housing Authority with an y advance notification that she

needed a different inspection time.

11. Ms. Carr conducted another inspection of Ms. ChandlerÔs residence on

January 23, 2018, and this inspection als o resulted in a failing grade.

Ms. CarrÔs ability to enter individual rooms was impeded by an excessive

amount of clutter. Nevertheless, her inspection report noted that a bathroom

sink was clogged and that black water was coming from the drain.

12. A third inspection occurred on February 1, 2018, and r esulted in

another failing grade. The inspection report noted several problems such as a

broken oven door handle, a broken dishwasher, an overheating refrigerator, a

nonfunctional doorbell, and a clogged sink. The inspection report also noted

the continued presence of excessive clutter.

13. The Housing Authority sent a letter to Mr. Dean on February 6, 2018,

notifying him that Ms. ChandlerÔs residence had failed a third inspection and

that the Housing AuthorityÔs contract with him would be terminated on

March 3, 2018, if the necessary repairs were not made by February 20, 2018.

14. Rather than making the necessary repairs, Mr. DeanÔs wife notified

the Housing Authority via e - mail on February 13, 2018, that Ms. Chandler

had been served with a 30 - day evict ion notice. Ms. Chandler remained in the

residence after expiration of the abatement period and thus become solely

responsible for the monthly rent. Mr. Dean later notified the Housing

Authority that Ms. Chandler owed him $1,501.36 in back rent and $2,000. 00

for property damage.

15. Eviction jeopardized Ms. ChandlerÔs continued eligibility for a housing

subsidy because HUD policy requires that clients be in good standing with

their previous landlord, and owing money to a landlord is not considered good

st anding.

1 6 . The Housing Authority issued a new voucher to Ms. Chandler on

February 21, 2018 , in order to give her more time to reach an agreement with

M r. Dean, relocate to a new residence, and avoid eviction. This voucher was

initially set to expire on A pril 29, 2018, but the Hous ing Authority extended

it to June 28, 2018. However, Ms. Chandler was unable to afford a move,

began falling behind on her rent, and the Okaloosa County Court rendered a

Final Judgment on April 27, 2018, evicting Ms. Chandler fro m the residence.

17. The Housing Authority notified Ms. Chandler via a letter dated

June 11, 2018, her housing subsidy would be ending on June 30, 2018, due to

the eviction. Ms. Chandler requested an informal hearing to dispute the

Housing AuthorityÔs dec ision, and an informal h earing officer issued a

decision on July 11, 2018, informing Ms. Chandler she was upholding the

Housing AuthorityÔs decision:

Due to your inability to maintain your home in a

safe and sanitary manner, [the Housing Authority]

(by po licy) was not able to continue paying their

portion of the landlordÔs rent. Your landlord could

not allow you to stay without receiving any rental

payment and therefore issued you a notice for rent

due, damages incurred, and demand for possession

of their unit. It was you who brought this notice to

Sheila Gordon [of the Housing Authority] . It

appeared to me that for a variety of reasons your

landlord was resistant to allowing you to stay in

the home. [The Housing Authority] went above the

normal policy to a llow you to move to another unit.

Sheila Gordon counseled you that you must not

allow the landlord to file an eviction or she would

have no choice but to terminate your assistance.

18. In sum, the failed inspections led to the abatement of the Housing

Aut horityÔs payments to Mr. Dean, the abatement of those payments led to

Mr. Dean evicting Ms. Chandler, and the eviction led to Ms. Chandler losing

her housing subsidy.

19. There was conflicting testimony about whether Ms. Chandler notified

the Housing Aut hority of her disability. For instance, Ms. Chandler testified

that she notified a Housing Authority inspector in 2015 about her disability.

However, there was no notation in the Housing AuthorityÔs files about

Ms. Chandler being disabled or requesting a reasonable accommodation.

20. Ms. Chandler testified that her appearance was enough to put the

Housing Authority on notice of her need fo r a reasonable accommodation.

Ms. Chandler specifically mentioned that she experiences conditions that

render her need for a reasonable accommodation readily apparent .

However, Sheila Gordon, the last Housing Authority employee to manage

Ms. ChandlerÔs file, testified that there was nothing about Ms. ChandlerÔs

appearance that would lead one to think that she was disabled.

21. Ms. Chandler did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that

she requested a reasonable accommodation or that the Housing Authority

should have been on notice of her need for a reasonable accommodation.

22. Ms. Chandler presented no evidence indicating that the Housing

Authority gives preferential treatment to people who are not disabled.

The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the Housing Authority

followed its established procedures in handling Ms. ChandlerÔs case a nd did

not discriminate against her in any way.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

23. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of

this proceeding. § 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

24. FloridaÔs Fair Housing Act, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida

Sta tutes, makes it unlawful to discriminate against persons in matters

incidental to a dwelling on the basis of a personÔs handicap. In that regard,

section 760.23(2), provides that:

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.

25. Section 760.23(8) and (9) provides:

(8) It i s 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 with such

dwelling, because of a handicap of:

(a) That buyer or renter;

(b) A person residing in or intending to reside in

that dwelling after it is sold, rented, or made

available; or

(c) Any person associated with the buyer or renter.

(9) For purposes of subsections (7) and (8),

discrimination includes:

* * *

(b) A refusal to make reasonable accommodations

in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such

accommodations may be necessary to afford such

person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a

dwelling.

26. Entities such as t he Housing Authority are not exempt from ant i -

discrimination laws. See generally Hinneberg v. Big Stone Cty. Hous. &

Redevelopment Auth. , 706 N .W.2d 220, 224 - 25 (Minn. 2005).

27. The Act is patterned after the Federal Fair Housing Act (Ñthe FHAÒ).

Federal court decisions interpreting the FHA provide guidance in

determining whether a violation of the Act has occurred. Dornbach v. Holley ,

854 So. 2d 211, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

28. With regard to Ms. ChandlerÔs argument that the Housing Authority

failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation, s he has the burden of

proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Housing Authority

violated the Act by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation for he r

disability. U.S. DepÔt of Hous. and Urban Dev. v. Blackwell , 908 F.2d 864, 870

(11th Cir. 1 990).

29. In evaluating such claims, courts apply the burden - shifting analysis

developed in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 - 804,

93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). Under this approach, a petitioner

must first establish a p rima facie case of discrimination. If the petitioner is

successful in doing so, then the burden shifts to the respondent to articulate a

legitimate, non - discriminatory reason for its action.

30. To establish a prima facie case of failure to provide a rea sonable

accommodation under the FHA, a petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) he

or she is disabled within the meaning of the FHA; (2) a reasonable

accommodation was requested; (3) that such accommodation was necessary to

afford him or her an opportunity t o use and enjoy the dwelling; and (4) the

respondent refused to make the requested accommodation. Bhogaita v.

Altamonte Heights Condo. AssÔn , 765 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2014).

31. Even if we assume that Ms. Chandler is disabled within the meaning

o f the Act, she failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the

Housing Authority was on notice of her disability. See Boston Hous. Auth. v.

Bridgewaters , 898 N.E.2d 848, 857 (Mass. 2009)(noting that Ñ[a]s a predicate

to obtaining a reasonable a ccommodation in federally financed public

housing, a disabled tenant must, if his landlord is not already aware, inform

the landlord that he has a disability and must request some

accommodation.Ò). Accordingly, she has failed to establish a prima facie cas e

of failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

32. To the extent that Ms. Chandler alleged a disparate treatment claim,

a petitioner seeking to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment

based on a failure to provi de services must show that she: (a) is a member of

a protected class; (b) that she requested services be performed on terms

comparable to others living in the community; and (c) that, based on her

disability, she was denied provision of services that w ere were available to

other te nants. See Miller v. Richman Prop. Servs., Laurel Oaks Apts. , Case

No. 12 - 3237 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 27, 2012; Fla. FCHR March 11, 2013)(setting

forth the elements of a prima facie disparate t reatment claim based on race).

The final element implies that the resp ondent was aware of the petitionerÔs

protected class status.

33. Ms. Chandler has failed to present a prima facie case. Even if it were

assumed that Ms. Chandler is sufficiently disabled to be a member of a

protected class, that the Housing Authority was aware of her condition, and

that she requested that services be performed on terms comparable to those

received by other residents, there was no persuasive evidence that any

actions or inactions by the Housing Authority were influenced by

Ms. ChandlerÔs p hysical or mental condition. In other words, there was no

persuasive evidence indicating that residents with no perceptible disabilities

received more favorable treatment from the Housing Authority.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact a nd Conclusions of Law, it is

R ECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a

final order dismissing Evelyn Chandler Ô s Petition for Relief from a

Discriminatory Housing Practice.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 1 6 th day of July, 2020 , in Tallahas see, Leon

County, Florida.

S

G. W. C HISENHALL

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 wi th the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 1 6 th day of July, 2020 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

Evelyn Cha ndler

65D 8th Avenue

Shalimar, Florida 32579

Jennifer Hanson Copus, Esquire

Copus & Copus, P.A.

Suite 200

25 Walter Martin Road Northeast

Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548

(eServed)

Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relatio ns

Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recomme nded

Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

case.