Inc., HUD Case # ; PCO Case #07-026

Transcription

1 AGENgCI; TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners M James L. Bennett, County Attorney Authority for County Attorney to Initiate Housing Discrimination Litigation On Behalf of Ms. Catherine J, Tucker in the Claim of Tucker v. Hillside-Clearwater, Inc., ; PCO Case # April 22,2007 RECOMMENDATION: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE TO INITIATE LITIGATION ON BEHALF OF MS. CATHEWE J. TUCKER IN THE ABOVE-STYLED FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT, DISCUSSION: On November 28, 2006, Ms. Cathy Tucker filed a complaint of housing discrimination with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In accordance with HUD s processing procedures, the complaint was referred to a local agency, the Pinellas County Office of Human Rights, which has been certified as a substantially equivalent agency by HUD under federal law. Ms. Tucker complained that she was treated discriminatorily on the basis of her sex by the management of the mobile home park where she resided, which is owned by Hillside-Clearwater, Inc. More specifically, she alleged that the park treated her differently in its enforcement of the park rules governing unit maintenance, storage of boats and trailers, supervision of children, etc. Following an investigation, on March27, 2008, the Pinellas County Office of Human Rights notified the parties of its finding of reasonable cause to believe the Complainant was a victim of unlawful housing discrimination on the basis of her sex, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Pinellas County Code. Attempts to conciliate the matter between the parties were not successful. 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 a reasonable cause determination. Therefore, it is recommended that the Board authorize the County Attorney s office to initiate such 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. JLB/WCF/sr Attachment H:\USERS\ATYKB3O\WPDOCSVICIMAN RIGHTS\Housing\Tucker, CathyBoard Memo to initiate 1itigation.doc

2 ? MEMORANDUM Y TO: FROM: Leon Rgssell, Human RightsEEO OfFcer William C. Falkner, Senior Assistant County Attorney Cathy Tucker v. Hillside-Clearwater, Inc., DATE: March 25,2007 I have been asked to review the Final Investigative Report and supporting documentation regarding the above-styled fair housing complaint, and render an opinion as to whether there is a reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent engaged in unlawful housing discrimination. 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 sex under the Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA), 42 U.S.C. 3604(b), and a similar provision located in Chapter 70 of the Pinellus County Code, Sec (b). Summary of Facts On November 28, 2006, Complainant filed a Complaintwiih the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging she was subjected to unlawful housing discrimination on the basis of sex by the Respondent. During the period of the alleged discrimination, the Complainant resided at Palm Haven Mobile Home Park, which is owned by the Respondent Hillside-Clearwater, Inc. In her Complaint, the Complainant alleged that when she moved into the mobile home park in June, 2006 she informed the Respondent s Property Manager, Jack Crornwell, that she would be having a roommate moving into the unit with her. She alleged she inquired as to the procedure Respondent had in place for this to occur, and was told that as long as the roommate passed a background check there wouldn t be a problem. She alleged that the roommate completed the required paperwork for the Respondent in July, However, she never received a response from the Park Management concerning her roommate. On August 8, 2006, the Complainant alleged that she received a written notice on her door from the Respondent stating her trailer needed washing and her steps needed painting. She was given three days to complete this maintenance. She alleged a neighbor got a similar notice, but was given ten days to complete the request. Another resident received a notice to perform lawn maintenance with no time frame being given. The Complainant alleged that when her boyfriend went to the Respondent s office to complete the appropriate paperwork for moving in, the Park Manager made the comment...isn t he too

3 Memo to Leon Russell Page 2 Cathy Tucker v. Hillside-Cleanvater, Inc. HUD Case # young for you.?. Additionally, she alleged that on another occasion the park owner cursed at her and called her a liar and bitch. On November 1, 2006, the Complainant alleged that she. received a 7-day non-compliance notice, telling her a storage trailer had to be removed from her property. The Complainant alleged other residents with similar trailers were not required to remove them. The Respondent replied to the Complainant s allegations in correspondence from its attorney. The Respondent did not dispute the Complainant s statements that she advised the Park Manager when she moved into the park that her boyfriend might later move in with her. Respondent did, however, maintain that the Complainant did not provide the proper paperwork until some six months after he moved in with the Complainant along with two minor children. As to the Complainant s alleged citations for park rule violations, the Respondent admitted providing the citations. Additionally, the Respondent acknowledged giving varying times for compliance to other park residents with similar violations. However, the Respondent maintained he gave varying time frames to cure violations without regard to a resident s gender. As to the Cornplainant s allegation that other tenants with similar trailers on their lots have not been required to remove them, the Respondent maintained that is not true. The Respondent cited two examples of residents, one male and one female, who were requested to remove their trailers and who did so, The Respondent alleged that when its Park Manager confronted the Complainant s roomrnatehoyfriend concerning the storage trailer which needed to be removed, the boyfriend became belligerent and verbally abusive. The Respondent also maintained that as of the date of its correspondence to the Pinellas County Office of Human Rights (PCOHR), dated July 10, 2007, the Complainant still had not complied with its notices issued on August 8, 2006, and November 1,2006. The Respondent also maintained that the Complainant s lot is the only lot in the park containing a storage trailer. The Respondent also provided exhibits with its correspondence to the PCOHR alleging complaints from other park residents about the Complainant s failure to maintain her dwelling, showing a comparison between other units front steps and the Complainant s noncompliant front steps, and showing complaints from the Complainant s neighbors about excessive noise at night coming from her unit.

4 Memo to Leon Russell - Page 3 Cathy Tucker v. Hillside-Clearwater, Inc. In October, 2007, the investigator from PCOHR conducted a visit to the Complainant s unit. While there, he confirmed that the Complainant had corrected the violations for which she had been cited by the Respondent. The Complainant also submitted pictures to the investigator of unpainted and noncompliant steps at other units, of units with boats, units with trailers, photos of vehicles without license plates, and photos of the Park Manager s son driving a golf cart within the community without supervision. APPLICABLE LAW The alleged activities of the Respondent may be in violation of the FFHA, 42 U.S.C. Q 3604(b), which reads as follows: 0.S.C. $3604 discrimination in sale or rental of house and other prohibited practices. As made applicable $3603 of this title and except as exempted by 3603(21) and 3607 of this title, it shatl be unlaw.1- (3) 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, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. A similar provision is located at Sec (b), which reads as follows: Sec sale or rental (a) A person may not discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in providing services or facilities in connection with such sale or rental, because of race, color, handicap, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. Elements of a Prima Facie Complaint and Discussion Courts have held that in order to establish a Prima Facie Complaint for violation of the FFH.4,42 U.S.C (b):.,.Plaintiff must make a modest showing that a member of a statutorily protected class was not offered the same terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling or not provided the same services or facilities in connection therewith made available to others

5 Memo to Leon Russell Page 4 Cathy Tucker v. Hillside-Cleanvater, Inc. under circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference of prohibited discrimination. US v. Town Hall Terrace Ass n, 1997 WL (W.D.N.Y.). In essence in this Complaint, the Complainant has alleged the Respondent violated (b) by engaging in disparate treatment of her in the enforcement of the park s rules. The Respondent has admitted issuing the pertinent citations to the Complainant, and even admitted inconsistencies in the time frames given to cure violations between the Complainant and other residents. Howek, the Respondent maintains that the inconsistencies were not due to gender, and that there is no evidence putting forth the Complainant s allegations of disparate treatment due to her gender. However, in my legal opinion there is compelling evidence that gives rise to an inference of discrimination based upon gender. The on-site visit by the investigator and photographs provided by the Complainant strongly indicate selective enforcement of the park s rules. For example, there are photographs of noncompliant stairs, trailers, boats, unregistered vehicles, etc., all of which are in apparent violation of the park s rules. Additionally, and incredibly, the Park Manager appeargto have had an unlicensed vehicle parked near his unit, and his teenage son was evidently driving a golf cart within the park without supervision, both apparent violations of the park s rules. Based upon the above, it is my legal opinion that the Complainant has established a prima facie complaint of housing discrimination on the basis of sex. Additionally, in light of the compelling evidence of disparate treatment by the Respondent in enforcement of the park s rules, it is my legal opinion that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent engaged in unlawful housing discrimination on the basis of sex, in violation of the FFHA, 42 U.S.C (b), and Q (b) of the Pinellas County Code. H:\USERSkTY KB30\WPWCS\HUMAN RIGHTS\Housing\Tucker, CathyReasonablc Cause Memo doc