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 2013 / FCHR Order No. 13-005

FCHR Order No. 13-005

Date of Release: 01/10/2013




HUD Case No. 04-11-1095-8


FCHR Case No. 2012H0035


DOAH Case No. 11-6126




FCHR Order No. 13-005





Preliminary Matters

Petitioner Ricardo Lockett filed a housing discrimination complaint pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 - 760.37, Florida Statutes (2010), alleging that Respondent Miami-Dade County committed a discriminatory housing practice on the basis of Petitioner’s race (African American) by failing to rent a dwelling to Petitioner by “steering” Petitioner, through its rental offer to him, to a predominantly Black public housing community, thus limiting his selection to other available communities.

The allegations set forth in the complaint were investigated, and, on November 9, 2011, 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 Tallahassee and Miami, Florida, on August 20, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge Cathy M. Sellers.

Judge Sellers issued a Recommended Order of dismissal, dated October 31, 2012.

The Commission panel designated below considered the record of this matter and determined the action to be taken on the 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. 13-005

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 Recommended Order in a four-page document received by the Commission on or about November 15, 2012.

There is no indication on the document that it was provided to the Respondent as is required by Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.104(4) and Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.110. However, the Commission published the document to the Respondent, and placed the document in the record of this case, through the issuance of a notice of ex parte communication, mailed to the parties on November 19, 2012.

Petitioner’s exceptions document excepts to the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In so doing, the document takes issue with inferences drawn by the Administrative Law Judge from the evidence presented, especially with regard to the facts and conclusions set out at paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Recommended Order.

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) and Eaves v. IMT-LB Central Florida Portfolio, LLC, FCHR Order No. 11-029 (March 17, 2011).

In addition, 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) and Eaves, supra.

Based on the foregoing, and noting that we have above adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact, Petitioner’s exceptions are rejected.

FCHR Order No. 13-005

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 10th day of January , 2013.


Commissioner Gilbert M. Singer, Panel Chairperson;

Commissioner Michael Keller; and

Commissioner Michell Long

Filed this 10th day of January , 2013,

in Tallahassee, Florida.


Violet Crawford, Clerk

Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(850) 488-7082

Copies furnished to:

Ricardo Lockett

Post Office Box 430612

Miami, FL 33243

Miami-Dade County

c/o Terrence A. Smith, Esq.

Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office

111 Northwest 1st Street, Suite 2810

Miami, FL 33128

FCHR Order No. 13-005

Page 4

Cathy M. Sellers, 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 10th day of January , 2013.

By: ________/s/________________

Clerk of the Commission

Florida Commission on Human Relations