|
No federal
or state housing law directly protects pet owners from discrimination.
There are, however, some times that landlords who have a “no pets” policy
are required to make an exception to that rule. Most obviously, blind
people who use guide dogs are exempt from such policies because as a
society, we recognize that it would be unjust to discriminate against them
for owning an animal out of necessity. The law also protects people
living with other types of disabilities.
The Fair
Housing Act requires landlords and property managers to make “reasonable
accommodations” in their rules, practices, or policies when they are
needed to insure that people living with disabilities have an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy their homes. This includes permitting those
who have disabilities, even if the landlord has a no-pet policy, to own a
therapeutic companion animal when the animal is deemed medically
necessary. HOME recently assisted two clients living at the Pinegrove Park
Townhouses in Hamburg who both had been denied such an accommodation.
Twice is enough
Mr. B is a
51 year old man who suffers from chronic pain and depression, and at the
suggestion of his psychiatrist adopted two small dogs as therapeutic
companion animals. The animals have been very beneficial to Mr. B’s
condition. He says:
“…These animals
have changed my life. I have a reason to get up in the morning. They
keep me busy, active—I even go out for walks which I never did. Although
my pain is constant and chronic they keep my mind off, for awhile, how
much I hurt…”
Even after
Mr. B explained his condition to the complex management, they refused to
allow him to keep his companions and imposed hefty fines amounting to over
$2,800 for breaking the pet policy. Unable to pay the fines, Mr. and Ms.
B were on the verge of losing their home. When the situation was brought
to the attention of HOME, staff immediately assisted in formally
requesting a reasonable accommodation, which was denied.
HOME then
assisted the B’s in filing a complaint with the Federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and with the New York State Division
of Human Rights (DHR). The case was conciliated and the management agreed
to reverse the fees and to allow Mr. and Ms. B to keep their therapeutic
pets. The B’s were greatly relieved that they would not have to lose
their home.
Unfortunately things did not end there, and in fact took a turn for the
worse. In the time since the agreement was reached, Mr. and Ms. B allege
they have been harassed, intimidated, and verbally threatened by the
management. New and unreasonably restrictive policies have been made,
seemingly in direct retaliation to the B’s asserting their rights. HOME
has again assisted Mr. and Ms. B in filing a retaliation complaint with
HUD and DHR.
Recently a
determination of probable cause was reached, and the case was recommended
for public hearing. This puts the case one step closer to justice finally
being realized for Mr. and Ms. B.
A second refusal
Ms. G is a
56 year old woman who suffers from a debilitating cervical disc disease as
well as from depression. Ms. G lived in the complex with her two
companion dogs before the property managers implemented the no-pet policy.
The policy allowed residents to keep the animals they already owned but
did not allow new pets on the property.
Unfortunately, soon after the policy was implemented, one of Ms. G’s dogs
passed away. Losing her dog was an emotional strain on Ms. G, which
consequently aggravated her physical condition. She and her doctors felt
it would be beneficial for her, both physically and emotionally, to
replace her therapeutic pet. Her request to replace the animal was
denied.
Ms. G
contacted HOME staff who assisted her in submitting a request for a
reasonable accommodation. The request included medical documentation
indicating that the pet would be a therapeutic companion animal assisting
her with her disabilities. The management again failed to grant the
accommodation, and Ms. G has felt intimidated and harassed by the
managements’ insensitive treatment which further aggravating her already
fragile condition.
Since
failure to grant reasonable accommodation is a form of discrimination on
the basis of disability, HOME assisted Ms. G in filing a complaint with
HUD and DHR, and is hopeful that justice will be done soon. |
