HUD Charges Housing Providers Over Emotional Support Animal
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has charged a Florida housing provider with discrimination over failing to provide reasonable accommodation for a tenant with a disability to live with an emotional-support animal, according to a release.
HUD charged Tallahassee, Fla., housing providers Greenbriar Partners, LLC, Jackson Properties and Financial Services, LLC, and Erwin D. Jackson with violating the Fair Housing Act.
According to the complaint, the tenant, who suffers from a mental disability and requires the assistance of an emotional-support animal, moved into the rental without an animal. The tenant then requested a reasonable accommodation in order to get the animal added to her rental unit.
The tenant provided a letter from a licensed mental health counselor who noted in his letter that the tenant had a mental disability and needed to live with an emotional-support animal, “because its presence will mitigate the symptoms of disability.”
The tenant emailed the housing providers stating she was a tenant at the subject property and attached a letter indicating she is qualified for an emotional-support animal. The tenant stated in her email that she had not adopted a dog because she was not approved yet by the housing providers.
Her request for reasonable accommodation was denied by Jackson.
According to the complaint, Jackson stated that allowing the tenant to have an ESA would constitute an undue financial burden and alter the company’s business practices.
Need Legal Help?
Chat with a real estate lawyer near you. It’s only $5 for a 1-week trial. Ask unlimited questions.
Jackson stated that allowing the ESA would force “our company” to lay off employees and would increase the housing provider’s landlord liability insurance rate.
In his email, Jackson added, “Events in the past and medical conditions inhibit my team’s ability to perform their tasks while in the presence of other animals and possesses a direct threat to their safety and their health.”
Jackson ended his email by stating, “Furthermore, your lease can and will be terminated at our discretion as you falsified information in your rental application indicating you had no pets or ESAs. The animal must be removed from the premises by no later than 7 days or a formal eviction notice will be issued.”
The tenant sent the email from Jackson to her legal counsel stating she did not currently have an ESA, but rather, got approved for an ESA and was planning to get one because she had “been on a decline mentally.”
The tenant relocated to an apartment complex that permitted her to have an ESA, though she continued paying rent at the original residence until her lease expired.
HUD’s charge alleges that the housing providers failed to grant the requested reasonable accommodation for an assistance animal. That denial led to economic loss, lost housing opportunity and emotional distress. The charge also alleges that the housing providers violated the Fair Housing Act when they threatened the tenant with an eviction because of her reasonable accommodation request.
“The Fair Housing Act requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling,” said Damon Smith, HUD General Counsel, in the release. “The Department will take action to ensure housing providers comply with their obligations to provide necessary reasonable accommodations.”
Source: Rental Housing Journal
Accessibility