The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners

Transcription

1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners James L. Bennett, County Attorney Authority for County Attorney to Initiate Housing Discrimination Litigation on Behalf of Santford L. Martin in the Claim of Santford L. Martin v. Crosswinds Mobile Home Park, Inc., DATE: June 2,2009 RECOMMENDATION: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO INITIATE LITIGATION ON BEHALF OF SANTFORD L. MARTIN IN THE ABOVE-STYLED FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT. DISCUSSION: On July 16,2008, Santford L. Martin filed a complaint of housing discrimination with the Pinellas County Office of Human Rights (PCOHR). His complaint was dual-filed with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in accordance with the agreement between Pinellas County and HUD enabling the PCOHR to investigate complaints filed with its office alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act Amendments of Mr. Martin, a veteran, suffers fiom a service-related disability for which he receives treatment fiom the Veterans Administration. His treating physician prescribed the use of an assistive animal, a dog, to ameliorate his service-connected disability. Mr. Martin had earlier filed a complaint of housing discrimination with HUD and the PCOHR based upon its refi.mil to grant his request for a reasonable accommodation to keep his assistive animal. After the filing of that complaint, Crosswinds continued to send him letters threatening eviction if he did not remove the animal and it refused to accept his rental payment in September Following an investigation, on May 11, 2009, the PCOHR notified the parties of its finding of reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Martin was the victim of retaliation by Crosswinds in violation of the relevant provisions of the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 and the Pinellas County Code. Attempts to conciliate the matter were unsuccessful. In accordance with Section of the Pinellas County Code, the County Attorney's Office is required to file a civil action on behalf of an aggrieved party, seeking appropriate relief following the issuance of a reasonable cause determination. Therefore, it is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County Attorney's Office to initiate such civil action through the existing contract with Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc. A detailed memorandum is attached, which sets forth the facts and applicable case law that led to the reasonable cause determination. JL'B/WCF/sr. Attachment H:\USERS\ATYKB30\WWCSW RIGHTSWousingMartin, Santford\Board Memo to initiate litigation doc

2 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Leon Russell, Human RightsIEEO Officer William C. Faker, Senior Assistant County Attorney HUD # ; PC M8-045 DATE: I have been asked to review the Final Investigative Report and supporting documentation regarding the above-styled fair housing complaint, and to render an opinion as to whether there is a legal basis for a finding of reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent engaged in unlawfirl housing discrimbation. Briefly, it is my legal opinion that there is a legal basis for a finding of reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent engaged in unlawful housing discrimination on the basis of handicapldisability, under the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (FHAA), 42 USC , and a similar provision located in Chapter 70 of the Pinellas County Code, SUMMARY OF FACTS On May 21, 2008, the Complainant, Santford L. Martin, filed a complaint of housing discrimination with the Pinellas County Office of Human Rights (PCOHR) alleging that the Respondent, Crosswinds Mobile Home Park, Inc., refused to grant him a reasonable accommodation to keep his medical assistive animal in his unit. The complaint was dualfiled with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in accordance with an agreement between HUD and PCOHR, enabling PCOHR to investigate complaints filed within Pinellas County under the FHAA. The PCOHR has been designated "substantially equivalent" under the provisions of 24 CFR , enabling it to handle investigations deferred to it by HUD. The Complainant purchased a mobile home in the Respondent's mobile home park in September, The Complainant and his spouse reside in the Complainant's unit in Respondent's mobile home park during the winter months. In his complaint, the Complainant alleged that in October, 2007, he first advised the park's manager that he had a service animal and offered to show the manager documentation fiom his physician supporting his need for the animal. He alleged the park manager told him at that time it would not be necessary for him to review the documents, and asked him to keep the dog quiet and out of sight as much as possible.

3 Memo to Leon Russell, Human RightsIEEO Officer Page 2 On April 16, 2008, the Respondent Board of Director's President sent a letter to the Complainant asking for the dog's certification as a service animal due to complaints fiom other residents that he had a dog. The Respondent's rules and regulations do provide that no pets are allowed in the park, and that any mobile home park owner maintaining a pet is in violation of the rules and subject to eviction. Shortly thereafter' the Complainant provided a letter fkom his Department of Veteran's Affairs treating physician, supporting his need for a medical assistive animal to the Respondent, and was told by the Respondent that the letter was not sufficient because it did not address the animal's training. On May 14,2008, the Complainant began receiving letters fkom the Respondent's legal counsel, advising him that he must remove his assistive animal or be evicted. He received such letters on or about May 14, May 15, June 5, and August 12, On September 2, 2008, the Respondent sent the Complainant a letter rejecting his rental payment "... due to ongoing legal don." Presumably, the ongoing legal action was the Respondent's attempt to evict the Complainant. The Complainant is a veteran who has been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder - (PTSD) connected to his military service. In a Rating Decision fiom the Veteran's Administration dated January 3 1,2004, he was assigned a 30% disability rating for major depression, and was deemed entitled to individual unemployability due to service-related heart disease and major depression. Although the Respondent maintained that its rules forbid residents fkom having pets, the Complainant has provided photographs showing cats at various locations within the mobile home park, including one photograph of a cat clearly inside of a residence. Additionally, an issue of the Respondent's newsletter discussed "wild cats" being in the park and advised residents that if their personal indoor cat were to be found outside, they could be fined. No mention is made that having such indoor cats is prohibited by the Respondent's rules. The allegations set forth in the Complainant's charges allege a violation of the FHAA, 42 U.S.C , which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "Sec Interference, coercion, or intimidation; enforcement by civil action.

4 Memo to Leon Russell, Human RightsEEO Officer Page 3 It shall be uniam to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by Sec. 803,804,805, or 806 of this title." A similar provision is contained at Chapter 70 of the Pinellas County Code, , which reads as follows: Set Interference, coercion, or intimidation. It shall be unlawfltl to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this subdivision." ANALYSIS To establish a claim of interference, coercion, or intimidation under the FHAA, a Complainant must provide proof of the following elements: (1) That the Complainant was engaged in an activity protected by the Act; (2) That the Respondent took some adverse action against the Complainant; and (3) That a causal connection existed between the protected activity and Respondent's adverse action. Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F. 3d 11 14,1128 (9" Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct (2002); Hall v. Lowder Realty Co., Inc., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 1322 (N.D. Ala 2001). I In the complaint at hand, it is certainly arguable that the Complainant began to exercise his rights under both the provisions of the F W, specifically 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(B), and (c)(2), when he responded to the letter from the Respondent asking for his dog's certification as a service animal in April, The Complainant's provision of a letter from his VA treating physician, which described his medical condition and stated his need for an assistive animal, put the Respondent on notice that a reasonable accommodation to its rules was being requested. However, even if one were to take the position that the documentation provided by the Complainant in April, 2008 was I

5 Memo to Leon Russell, Human Rights/EEO Officer Page 4 insufficient notice that the Complainant was exercising his rights under the federal law and county ordinance, his filing of a charge of discrimination with the PCOHR on May 21, 2008, and the subsequent provision of notice of the charge mailed to the Respondent on May 27,2008, undoubtedly served to put the Respondent on notice of the Complainant's exercise of such rights. Therefore, it is my legal opinion that the Complainant has satisfied the first required element of a prima facie complaint. Next, there must be a showing that the Respondent took some adverse action against the Complainant. Documentation in the case file reflected that on June 5 and August 12, 2008, the Respondent mailed the Complainant letters advising him that he must remove his assistive animal or be evicted. Additionally, on September 2, 2008, the Respondent sent the Complainant a letter officially rejecting his rental payment due to what it referred to as "... ongoing legal action." Presumably, the ongoing legal action was the Respondent's pursuit of the Complainant's eviction due to his maintaining an assistive animal. In light of these facts, it is my legal opinion that the Respondent took adverse action against the Complht, satisfjling this element of a prima facie complaint. The last element the Complainant must satisfy to establish his complaint is the requirement to show some connection between the Respondent's adverse action and the Complainant's protected activity. It is undeniable that the Respondent was sending the Complainant letters threatening eviction because of his having and seeking to keep an assistive animal, which is his right under the FHAA and the Pinellas County Code. Additionally, the Respondent's rejection of the Complainant's rent in September, 2008 is apparently connected to the Respondent's threatened legal action to evict the Complainant because of his keeping an assistive animal. Therefore, it is my legal opinion that there is a causal connection between the Complainant's exercise of his rights under the FHAA, and similar provisions of the Pinellas County Code, and the Respondent's adverse action. Finally, considering all of the above, it is my legal opinion that there is a legally sufficient basis for a finding of reasonable cause to believe the Respondent engaged in unlavdd housing di-tion in violation of the FW, 3617, and a similar provision found at , of the Pinellas County Code. H:\USERS\ATYKB30\WPDOCWWWW RIGHTSWousingb4artin, SantFord\Reawnable Cause Memo to Omdoc