|
FAQ on Service Animals and Air Travel |
This FAQ provides a short explanation of the law and regulations related to service animals on U.S. commercial airlines. |
|
Fair Housing of the Dakotas, Inc. v. Goldmark Property Management, Inc. |
Plaintiffs bring this action against Goldmark Property Management alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The alleged discriminatory policy is a mandatory application fee, non-refundable deposit, and monthly charge that Goldmark imposes on tenants with disabilities who reside with a non-specially trained assistance animal (i.e. a companion pet). These same fees are waived for tenants with disabilities who reside with a trained assistance animal (i.e. a seeing eye dog). The FHA encompasses all types of assistance animals regardless of training; therefore, Goldmark's policy implicates the FHA. Further, Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a prima face case of discrimination and have presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues for trial on the questions of the necessity and reasonableness of the requested accommodation and whether Goldmark's alleged objective for the policy is permissible under the FHA and not pretextual. Therefore, Goldmark's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as to Plaintiffs' claim of disparate treatment because no proof was offered of a discriminatory intent. It is denied as to Plaintiffs' claims of disparate impact and failure to make a reasonable accommodation. |
|
Evolving Functions of Service and Therapy Animals and the Implications for Public Accommodation Access Rules |
This in-depth article presents the various categories of service animals and the functions they perform. It then examines the federal and state laws and regulations that control access to public accommodation and transportation. The authors conclude by suggesting that a uniform system of licensing and tagging would alleviate the confusion presented by current laws.
|
|
England/Wales - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019 |
|
|
Emotional Support Animals Excepted From "No Pets" Lease Provisions Under Federal Law |
Federal statutes provide protection for disabled persons against housing discrimination. These statutes and corresponding case law hold that an emotional support animal is a reasonable accommodation for a mentally disabled person, and if a landlord fails to waive a no pets policy to allow the emotional support animal in rental housing, the landlord is in violation of federal laws.
|
|
Emotional Support Animals and Waiver of "No Pets" Rules by Landlords |
|
|
Emotional Assistance Animals in Rental Housing: A How-to Guide |
This article provides some general information on how to seek help when a person needs an emotional support animal to function in daily life and a landlord enforces a "no pets" policy.
|
|
Douglas Furbee, et al. v. Gregory L. Wilson, et. al. |
Shelly Linder lived in an apartment complex with a no-pet policy. Linder asked if she could have an emotional-support animal and provided a letter from a licensed family and marriage therapist, which stated that Linder had a disability and required an emotional-support animal to help alleviate her symptoms. The letter did not identify a specific disability and the landlord subsequently requested more information from Linder. Linder did not provide any additional information and instead brought her cat into her apartment as her emotional-support animal. The landlord charged Linder a fine after discovering the cat on the premises and gave her seven days in which to remove the cat. Linder failed to comply which led to Linder’s eviction. The Indiana Civil Rights Commission filed a complaint against the landlord on behalf of Linder in Delaware Circuit Court alleging that the landlord failed to accommodate her request for an emotional-support animal in turn violating the Indiana Fair Housing Act. The trial court denied summary judgment for the landlord and this appeal followed. The landlord conceded that Linder was disabled and requested a reasonable accommodation, however, the landlord argued that it was not given enough information from which to “meaningfully” review Linder’s request. The Delaware Court of Appeals agreed that the Landlord did not have sufficient information to meaningfully review Linder’s request and because Linder did not inform the Landlord about her disability and her need for the cat, she was acting in bad faith. The Court ultimately reversed and remanded the case to the trial court. |
|
Dogs in Dorms: How the United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearney Illustrates A Coverage Gap Created by the Intersection of Fair Housing and Disability Law |
In United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearney, a federal district court was asked to determine whether a university, as a provider of housing for its students, must comply with the standards set out in the Fair Housing Act? Typically, the Fair Housing Act requires that housing providers make reasonable accommodations to no-pets policies for people with disabilities to live with emotional support animals, regardless of the animal's training as a service animal. The federal court, however, held that the Fair Housing Act also requires universities to waive no-pets policies for students with emotional support animals. This article examines the test used to determine the applicability of the Fair Housing Act to dwellings—arguing for a new factor test—and also discusses the current test’s effect on the legal coverage for emotional support animals. |
|
Dog-Focused Law's Impact on Disability Rights: Ontario's Pit Bull Legislation as a Case in Point |
Legislation that affects dogs also affects persons with disabilities to some extent. This link shows up in statutory definitions, is justified by social construction theory, and has been reified in case law. Thus, it is important to examine statutes like Ontario’s pit bull legislation (OPBL) in terms of their potential impact on persons with disabilities. Upon close examination, it appears that the legislation suffers from vague definitions, conflicting onus of proof, absence of fair process, and severe penalties, including imprisonment. Further, it contains no reference to dogs used by persons with disabilities. This means that there is potential for persons with disabilities to suffer negative consequences and a need to consider disability rights in dog-focused legislation.
|
