Skip to Main Content. Please Contact Us if there is anything we can do to improve the Accessibility of this site.
  • Search:

Right menu

Left menu

Home / Complaints / Final Orders / Final Orders 2011 / FCHR Order No. 11-029

FCHR Order No. 11-029

Date of Release: 03/17/2011




HUD Case No. 04-10-0710-8




FCHR Case No. 2010H0244



DOAH Case No. 10-3324


FCHR Order No. 11-029




Preliminary Matters

Petitioner Edward Eaves filed a housing discrimination complaint pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 - 760.37, Florida Statutes (2009), alleging that Respondent IMT-LB Central Florida Portfolio, LLC, committed discriminatory housing practices on the bases of Petitioner’s race (African American) and retaliation in its dealings with Petitioner related to Petitioner’s leasing of an apartment at one of Respondent’s properties.

The allegations set forth in the complaint were investigated, and, on June 3, 2010, the Executive Director issued a determination finding that there was no reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice and the case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a formal proceeding.

An evidentiary hearing was held by video teleconference at sites in Orlando and Tallahassee, Florida, on September 20, 2010, before Administrative Law Judge J. D. Parrish.

Judge Parrish issued an Amended Recommended Order of dismissal, dated January 5, 2011.

The Commission panel designated below considered the record of this matter and determined the action to be taken on the Amended Recommended Order.

Findings of Fact

We find the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact to be supported by competent substantial evidence

We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact.

FCHR Order No. 11-029

Page 2

Conclusions of Law

We find the Administrative Law Judge’s application of the law to the facts to result in a correct disposition of the matter.

We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law.


Petitioner filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Amended Recommended Order in a document entitled “Petitioner’s Notice of Right to Submit Exceptions.”

With regard to exceptions to Recommended Orders, the Administrative Procedure Act states, “The final order shall include an explicit ruling on each exception, but an agency need not rule on an exception that does not clearly identify the disputed portion of the recommended order by page number or paragraph, that does not identify the legal basis for the exception, or that does not include appropriate and specific citations to the record.” Section 120.57(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2009); see, also, Bartolone v. Best Western Hotels, FCHR Order No. 07-045 (August 24, 2007).

A review of Petitioner’s exceptions document suggests that it does not comply with this statutory provision.

Nevertheless, it can be said, generally, that Petitioner excepts to the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that no discriminatory housing practice occurred in this matter, and takes issue with facts found, facts not found, and inferences drawn from the evidence presented.

The Commission has stated, “It is well settled that it is the Administrative Law Judge’s function ‘to consider all of the evidence presented and reach ultimate conclusions of fact based on competent substantial evidence by resolving conflicts, judging the credibility of witnesses and drawing permissible inferences therefrom. If the evidence presented supports two inconsistent findings, it is the Administrative Law Judge’s role to decide between them.’ Beckton v. Department of Children and Family Services, 21 F.A.L.R. 1735, at 1736 (FCHR 1998), citing Maggio v. Martin Marietta Aerospace, 9 F.A.L.R. 2168, at 2171 (FCHR 1986).” Barr v. Columbia Ocala Regional Medical Center, 22 F.A.L.R. 1729, at 1730 (FCHR 1999). Accord, Bowles v. Jackson County Hospital Corporation, FCHR Order No. 05-135 (December 6, 2005).

Further, it has been stated, “The ultimate question of the existence of discrimination is a question of fact.” Florida Department of Community Affairs v. Bryant, 586 So. 2d 1205, at 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accord, Coley v. Bay County Board of County Commissioners, FCHR Order No. 10-027 (March 17, 2010).

Noting that we have above found the facts as found by the Administrative Law Judge to be supported by competent substantial evidence, Petitioner’s exceptions are rejected.

FCHR Order No. 11-029

Page 3


The Petition for Relief and Housing Discrimination Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice.

The parties have the right to seek judicial review of this Order. The Commission and the appropriate District Court of Appeal must receive notice of appeal within 30 days of the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. Explanation of the right

to appeal is found in Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of March , 2011.


Commissioner Mario M. Valle, Panel Chairperson;

Commissioner Lizzette Romano; and

Commissioner Joanna Sharp

Filed this 17th day of March , 2011,

in Tallahassee, Florida.


Violet Crawford, Clerk

Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(850) 488-7082

Copies furnished to:

Edward Eaves

5267 Crisfield Ct.

Orlando, FL 32808

IMT-LB Central Florida Portfolio, LLC

c/o James I. Barron, III, Esq.

James I. Barron, III, P.A.

301 East Pine Street, Suite 150

Orlando, FL 32801

FCHR Order No. 11-029

Page 4

J. D. Parrish, Administrative Law Judge, DOAH

James Mallue, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the above listed addressees this 17th day of March , 2011.

By: ________/s/__________________

Clerk of the Commission

Florida Commission on Human Relations