FL Statute 760: DISCRIMINATION IN THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS

The HUD Complaint was based on two provisions of FL Fair Housing Act:

Chapter 760
DISCRIMINATION IN THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS; MINORITY REPRESENTATION


760.23 Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices.—

(2) 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.
History.—s. 5, ch. 83-221; s. 2, ch. 84-117; s. 2, ch. 89-321.

760.37

760.37 Interference, coercion, or intimidation; enforcement by administrative or civil action.—It is unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise of, or on account of her or his having exercised, or on account of her or his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise of any right granted under ss. 760.20-760.37. This section may be enforced by appropriate administrative or civil action.
History.—s. 12, ch. 83-221; s. 9, ch. 89-321; s. 1142, ch. 97-102.

This was posted on the slresort.net website, poster unidentified, though it sounds the lawyers' language:

On October 16, 2016, under the anti - descrimination laws there is a clear legal definition of "hostile living environment".  This came too late for our case, but will have severe impact on some of the practice within SLohA and hold Board members to a higher standard.   So, if you hear or utter the words "dark side " "evil" "I hope you house berns down"  or engage in vandalism against your neighbor on his or her home or burn a cross on a neighbor's lawn, you may and will be prosecuted.  But more profoundly, SLohA  will be held liable and accountable for NOT taking action if they have any awareness or practice of these acts.  

So when leery listerine testifies that "Oh yes, we called them the dark side"  and Jade Rite steps into a person's face and says "You are and evil woman" or Peet Brdun announcing to people "That if it weren't for their lifestyle there would be no lawsuit " or Clf Jnsn laughingly referring to others who opposed the Board in social settings in very negative ways---that will now be very major basis for TARGETING someone and creating a hostile environment.   

My recommendation to the Board is to move this all into a positive growth and learning experience by stepping up to the plate and educating ALL  of S-bag as to the new interpretation and what we can all do to put all of this ugliness behind us and try to be a fully united community serving All Association members not just a simple majority.

You can do your part by never saying or uttering evil, hateful, divisive words about your neighbors.  

As a final major point SLohA  prevailed ONLY because (with the exception on leery listerine ' s testimony)  the rest of the actions were outside the very limited 365 days allotted from dates of incidents to date of the amended complaint filed.  NOT BECAUSE THESE ACT DID NOT OCCUR.

Also, if you feel targeted in any way, inform in writing the management and the Board.   Failure of either to respond holds them both culpable and responsible. 

Speaking of lawsuits involving government, a common defense used by a municipality is a motion claiming that the alleged act by the municipal official was outside of his/her agency. For example if a police officer was speeding back to the station for lunch and caused a fatal accident, the municipality might claim that it had written rules regarding when a police officer was permitted to engage in "hot pursuit" , and that if the defendant officer was speeding, he/she was disobeying departmental rules. In simple language, the municipality is saying that the officer is on his/her own to defend against the plaintiffs claim.
The reason I bring this up relates to the hue and cry among many Saddlebaggers that our HOA fees are rising due to the high cost of defending against lawsuits.
Since this was a Civil Rights case, it seems to me that - as an opening gambit - SLohA's attorney's  would file a motion stating that the alleged actions of these Board members would be in violation of stated policy (such a policy of non-discrimination would have been part of SLohA's application for the SBA loan). If such a motion were to be filed and the hearing body agreed, SLohA would have been removed as a defendant at a relatively low legal cost. Then it would be up to the remaining defendants to defend against the claim.
A second point regarding this discrimination claim is that it was only a claim, not a full lawsuit.  As a former city manager I once found myself having to deal with a claim in front of the State of Wisconsin's EEOC involving a charge of discrimination in hiring. Ironically, the claim was brought by a person who was one of the applicants for the city manager's job. But rather than spending City money for lawyers (our City Attorney was not a full time employee but, rather, a law firm on retainer ), I answered the claim myself. I produced the written job description/job qualifications that had been prepared by a UW Professor of Government for the the City prior to its advertising for the position opening. Based upon that job description, the EEOC ruled that the complainant did not meet the legitimate minimum job qualifications and, therefore, had no case. So the case was resolved in the City's favor at virtually no cost, other than a few hours of my time. Again, I question why we had to spend so much on legal fees when all that was needed was testimony under oath by those Board members accused of making discriminatory statements that no such statements were ever made. Unless there were corroborating witnesses to those alleged statements, the administrative judge hearing the case would have issued a summary judgement in favor of the defendants. If there were corroborating witnesses, there still should not have been any legal cost to SLohA because the Board members alleged to have made such discriminatory statements  would have been in violation of SLohA's written policy. As such those Board members would be on their own to defend their actions, and SLohA would bear no further liability.
One final note... The reason municipalities (and corporations, for that matter) seek an initial motion to be taken off the list of defendants (or"respondents") is because the plaintiff/complainant ) is seeking "deep pockets". If those deep pockets are removed the plaintiff's attorneys have little interest in pursuing the case and, therefor, encourage their client to settle.  Again, that results in very low costs to the plaintiff.
Just sayin'...