Source: https://www.povertylaw.org/clearinghouse/articles/pets
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:49:42+00:00

Document:
Cheyenne is my best friend. Cheyenne is the only thing in life that brings me joy, loves me unconditionally. She’s taught me how to be responsible. I’ve never lived on my own by myself ever in my life. I am a responsible person because of my dog. I know I have to walk her. I know I have to shop. I know I have to eat. I know I have to go places and because of Cheyenne, I can do it.
Service animals have long been known to help people with disabilities live independently and enjoy equal access to public places. Historically discussions about service animals have focused on dogs that help people with physical disabilities, but emotional-support animals can have a strong therapeutic benefit for people with psychiatric disabilities.1 An emotional-support animal can alleviate symptoms and ease the social isolation of people with mental illness. This relief can be accomplished without any specialized and potentially expensive training. Having an emotional-support animal is a simple, nonmedical intervention that can greatly increase the well-being of a person with a disability.
Despite the advantages to people with mental illness, the request for an emotional-support animal can be contentious in housing that prohibits pets. Although the need for an emotional-support animal is analogous to the need for a seeing-eye dog, requests for emotional-support animals are often more controversial. Because emotional-support animals do not require specialized training, some allege that the concept is abused by people who are with and without disabilities and who simply want a pet when the rules of their housing forbid having pets.2 Landlords, condominium associations, and other housing providers may react with cynicism to a valid request that a no-pet rule be waived so that a tenant with a disability can have an emotional-support animal.
Here I review the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 as it relates to reasonable accommodations for emotional-support animals. I discuss case law as well as guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Justice. I conclude with practical tips for legal aid practitioners.
Terms related to animals that assist people with disabilities are used in both legal and nonlegal contexts—“service animal,” “assistance animal,” “support animal,” “emotional-support animal,” and “companion animal.” The terms are often used interchangeably, leading to confusion about the purpose of the animal and the rights of the person with a disability to have the animal in housing where animals are otherwise barred. Courts, laypeople, and experts do not all adhere to the same terminology, but, for clarity, I use “service animal” here to refer to animals, such as psychiatric service animals, that have received specialized training to perform tasks. I use “assistance animal” to refer to animals, such as emotional-support animals, that have not been trained to perform tasks.
Having an emotional-support animal is a simple, nonmedical intervention that can greatly increase the well-being of a person with a disability.
Who Is Considered a Person with a Disability?
When Is an Assistance Animal Necessary and Reasonable?
One who is able to meet the “necessary” prong is likely to meet the “reasonable” prong. As the court in Bronk stated, “a deaf individual’s need for the accommodation afforded by a hearing dog is, we think, per se reasonable” when balanced against a landlord’s economic and aesthetic concerns.18 One instance where an assistance animal might be necessary but not reasonable is where the animal has behavior problems, such as loud barking, aggressive behavior, noxious odors, or urinating or defecating in public areas of the building. An animal with a behavior problem could be found, depending on the severity of the problem, to be an undue burden or direct threat to the health and safety of other residents (discussed below). A court could find that accommodating the assistance animal was not reasonable, as in Woodside Village v. Hertzmark.19 The tenant in that case had schizophrenia and learning disabilities. Despite the housing authority’s repeated attempts to accommodate him, including arranging for assistance from a dog trainer and purchasing a “pooper scooper,” collar, and leash, the tenant was unable to care for and control his dog. To require the housing authority to waive its pet rules that dogs be walked in certain areas and their waste be picked up by their owners was not reasonable, the court held.
An emotional-support animal can alleviate symptoms and ease the social isolation of people with mental illness.
When May a Housing Provider Request Additional Information?
Must an Assistance Animal Be Trained to Perform Specific Tasks?
The trend in the past 10 years has been solidly against requiring assistance-animal training under the Fair Housing Amendments Act.
The significant benefit to people with psychiatric disabilities that emotional-support animals can give is increasingly being accepted by courts and government agencies.
Given the Fair Housing Amendments Act’s legal framework and related case law, a legal aid provider can do a number of things to assist clients seeking approval for assistance animals.
A legal aid advocate can assist a person who needs an emotional-support animal by preparing a strong, detailed written request for a reasonable accommodation and obtaining supporting documentation from the client’s treating physician or mental health provider.64 Short notes written on prescription pads or cursory statements that a physician is “prescribing” an emotional-support animal are not sufficient. Although a person with a disability can write the person’s own letter requesting the accommodation, the request is stronger if most of the substantive information on the person’s disability and the particular benefit that the person would derive from having an emotional-support animal comes from a treating physician or mental health treatment provider.
First, the request should state the person’s disability, and it must describe how the disability substantially limits a major life activity, such as caring for oneself, working, or learning. Merely stating a diagnosis is not sufficient.
Second, the request should describe the ways in which the disability limits the person’s use and enjoyment of the person’s dwelling. For example, a mental health treatment provider could state that a person’s diagnosis of major depression causes a depressed mood, difficulty leaving home, and limited social interactions.
And, third, the supporting documentation should explain how an emotional-support animal will alleviate the symptoms of the disability and give the person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the person’s home. The treatment provider can explain, for example, that the companionship of a dog will elevate the person’s mood and taking a dog for daily walks will motivate the person to leave the house and interact with others. The request should contain an offer to discuss the request and give additional information if necessary.
Details must be given to avoid accusations that the request is vague or merely parroting the language of the statute, but an advocate should be careful not to disclose too much private information to the housing provider. Each person must decide how much information to disclose in the original request. If a person limits the details in the original request, the person can always supplement them if the housing provider makes a reasonable request for more information.
The options for what to do when a request for an emotional-support animal is denied are likely to vary from state to state and from city to city with what kinds of state and local antidiscrimination statutes are available. However, as a general matter, legal aid practitioners should consider the following options for their clients.
First, review the documentation given to the landlord. Is the tenant willing to share additional information that could bolster the request? Consider working directly with mental health providers to craft a more complete letter of support for your client.
Second, could another animal that might be less objectionable to the housing provider serve as the emotional-support animal? For example, a housing provider might be more amenable to a request to have a small dog as opposed to a large dog, or a cat instead of a dog.
Third, explore whether the state or locality has laws prohibiting discrimination based on disability and has an administrative agency that enforces them. For example, in New York, clients can file a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights.
And, fourth, an advocate could file an affirmative case under the Fair Housing Amendments Act in federal court.
Ideally people living in no-pet housing receive a housing provider’s permission before obtaining an emotional-support animal. However, people sometimes obtain an animal without requesting a reasonable accommodation. When this occurs, some housing providers commence an eviction proceeding. Although available defenses vary considerably with jurisdiction, advocates should consider whether requesting a reasonable accommodation for the animal can help defend against the eviction action.
The significant benefit to people with psychiatric disabilities that emotional-support animals can give is increasingly being accepted by courts and government agencies. However, the concept still encounters suspicion and resistance from some housing providers who do not understand how an untrained assistance animal can be more than a pet to a person with a disability. Advocates who are well prepared to confront these barriers can offer crucial support to individual clients and be an essential part of building broader awareness and acceptance for this accommodation.
1 See Pet Partners, Library: Health Benefits of Animals for Adults (Jan. 23, 2013) (bibliography of health benefits of companion animals).
2 Susan Stellin, Do You Have a Doctor’s Note?, New York Times, Sept. 27, 2013.
3 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (2013).
4 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities, 75 Fed. Reg. 56236, 56240 (Sept. 15, 2010) (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 36); Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, 75 Fed. Reg. 56164, 56166 (Sept. 15, 2010) (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 35).
5 Memorandum from Sara K. Pratt, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, to All Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Regional Directors and Regional Counsel (Feb. 17, 2011) (New ADA Regulations and Assistance Animals as Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Service Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities in Housing and HUD-Funded Programs (April 25, 2013).
6 Pet Ownership for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities, 73 Fed. Reg. 63834, 63836 (Oct. 27, 2008) (to be codified at 24 C.F.R. pt. 5).
7 Fair Housing Amendments Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1).
9 United States v. California Mobile Home Park Management Company, 107 F.3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1997).
10 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); Astralis Condominium Association v. Secretary of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 620 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 2010); DuBois v. Association of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); Bryant Woods Inn Incorporated v. Howard County, 124 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 1997); Bronk v. Ineichen, 54 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 1995).
11 Astralis Condominium Association, 620 F.3d at 67; DuBois, 453 F.3d at 1179.
12 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h).
13 24 C.F.R. § 100.201(b) (2013).
14 U.S. Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice: Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act 13 n.10 (May 17, 2004) (citing Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corporation, 526 U.S. 795, 797 (1999)).
15 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
16 Bronk, 54 F.3d at 429. See Bryant Woods Inn, 124 F.3d at 604; Fair Housing of the Dakotas Incorporated v. Goldmark Property Management Incorporated, 778 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1039 (D.N.D 2011); Overlook Mutual Homes Incorporated v. Spencer, 666 F. Supp. 2d 850, 856 (S.D. Ohio 2009), aff’d, 415 F. App’x 617 (6th Cir. 2011).
17 Bryant Woods Inn, 124 F.3d at 604; California Mobile Home Park Management, 107 F.3d at 1381.
18 Bronk, 54 F.3d at 429.
19 Woodside Village v. Hertzmark, No. 9204-65092, 1993 WL 268293 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 22, 1993). See Stevens v. Hollywood Towers and Condominium Association, 836 F. Supp. 2d 800, 809–10 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (condominium association may be able to restrict support dog’s access to common areas unless plaintiff could prove that she was required to have animal with her at all times, could not have him in carrier, and was prevented from entering or leaving building by restrictions).
20 Falin v. Condominium Association of La Mer Estates Incorporated, No. 11-61903-CIV, 2012 WL 1910021, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2012).
21 Crossroads Apartments Associates v. LeBoo, 152 Misc. 2d 830, 835 (Rochester, N.Y., City Ct. 1991).
22 Auburn Woods I Homeowners Association v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, 18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669, 679 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
24 Hudson Troy Towers Apartment Corporation v. Malfetti, No. A-1637-10T2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 9, 2012).
25 In re Durkee v. Staszak, 636 N.Y.S.2d 880, 882 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996).
27 Landmark Properties v. Olivo, 783 N.Y.S.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Term 2004).
28 Lucas v. Riverside Park Condominiums Unit Owners Association, 776 N.W.2d 801, 811 (N.D. 2010).
29 U.S. Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, supra note 14, at 13.
30 Hawn v Shoreline Towers Phase I Condominium Association Incorporated, 347 F. App’x 464, 468 (11th Cir. 2009); Prindable v. Association of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 304 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1258 (D. Haw. 2003).
31 Hawn, 347 F. App’x at 468; Prindable, 304 F. Supp. 2d at 1260; Lucas, 776 N.W.2d at 811.
32 Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Association, No. 6:11-cv-1637-Orl-31DAB (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2012).
35 Auburn Woods I Homeowners Association, 18 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 683 (citing Jankowski Lee and Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 1996)). See Lucas, 776 N.W.2d at 811.
36 Auburn Woods I Homeowners Association, 18 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 684.
37 Shapiro v. Cadman Towers Incorporated, 51 F.3d 328, 335 (2d Cir. 1995).
38 Green v. Housing Authority of Clackamas County, 994 F. Supp. 1253, 1256 (D. Or. 1998).
39 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9).
40 School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987); Implementation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 54 Fed. Reg. 3232, 3247 (Jan. 23, 1989); Implementation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 53 Fed. Reg. 44992, 45001–2 (proposed Nov. 7, 1988).
41 School Board of Nassau County, 480 U.S. at 288–89.
42 U.S. Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, supra note 14, at 4.
43 Pet Ownership for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities, 73 Fed. Reg. at 63836–37.
44 Id. at 63837 (emphasis added).
46 Roe v. Housing Authority of Boulder, 909 F. Supp. 814, 822–23 (D. Colo. 1995); Roe v. Sugar River Mills Associates, 820 F. Supp. 636, 640 (D.N.H. 1993).
47 In re Kovalevich v. Rhea, No. 402392/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013).
49 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619; 24 C.F.R. §§ 100.1–100.400.
50 Bronk, 54 F.3d 425; Assenberg v. Anacortes Housing Authority, No. C05-1836RSL (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2006), aff’d, 268 F. App’x 643 (9th Cir. 2008); Green, 994 F. Supp. 1253; Oras v. Housing Authority of Bayonne, 861 A.2d 194 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004); Timberlane Mobile Home Park v. Washington State Human Rights Commission, 95 P.3d 1288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004); In re Kenna Homes Cooperative Corporation, 557 S.E.2d 787 (W. Va. 2001).
51 Bronk, 54 F.3d 425; Green, 994 F. Supp. 1253.
53 Prindable, 304 F. Supp. 2d at 1256.
54 DuBois, 453 F.3d at 1179 n.2.
55 Bedell v. Long Reef Condominium Homeowners Association, No. 2011-051 (D.V.I. Dec. 6, 2013); Association of Apartment Owners of Liliuokalani Gardens at Waikiki v. Taylor, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (D. Haw. 2012); Falin, 2012 WL 1910021, at *3; Fair Housing of the Dakotas, 778 F. Supp. 2d at 1036; Auburn Woods I Homeowners Association, 18 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 679.
56 Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corporation, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1136 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (emphasis added).
57 Auburn Woods I Homeowners Association, 18 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 679.
58 Overlook Mutual Homes, 666 F. Supp. 2d at 859 (citing 24 C.F.R. § 5.303).
59 Id. at 860 (citing Pet Ownership for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities, 73 Fed. Reg. 63834).
61 Association of Apartment Owners of Liliuokalani Gardens at Waikiki, 892 F. Supp. 2d at 1285.
62 Fair Housing of the Dakotas, 778 F. Supp. 2d at 1036.
64 See U.S. Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, supra note 14, at 13–14.

References: v. 
 § 35
 § 3604
 v. 
 § 3604
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3602
 § 100
 v. 
 § 3604
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3604
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5