Ok so now that I have your attention....
There is a difference between the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, the Fair Housing Act and the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA). The peacock, whose name is Dexter according to news articles, along with his owner were denied boarding a flight in January 2018. Whether or not the request to bring Dexter and the subsequent denial were appropriate is a question for the ADA and ACAA. For the purposes of this post, let's consider whether a housing provider would be required to allow Dexter to live with his owner. The answer isn't simple. There are many moving parts.
The Fair Housing Act requires housing providers to make "reasonable accommodations" and "reasonable modifications" for persons with disabilities to enable those persons to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the premises.
The Act defines a person with a disability to include individuals with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. It also includes individuals who are regarded as having such an impairment and individuals with a record of such an impairment. If you want to get into the details such as defining substantially, or major life activity see HUD's Memorandum on Reasonable Accommodations, question #3.
A modification refers to a change to the structure of the building (think widening doorways, ramps, raising and lowering cabinets, smoke detectors that flash, etc.) Accommodations are changes in rules, policies, practices or services. An example of an accommodation might be permitting a live in personal assistant or a special parking space.
An accommodation is also allowing a service or support animal at no additional cost even in a unit where pets are not allowed. A service or support animal is not a pet. This is the key to understanding the law so I'll repeat it. A service or support animal is not a pet. So any rules that apply to pets - such as "no pets" or "pets allowed for additional rent or deposit" - may not be applied to service or support animals.
So back to Dexter the peacock. Does it matter that Dexter is not a dog? No. The Fair Housing Act does not limit service and support animals to dogs. The ADA does. So a restaurant for example would be permitted to deny service to Dexter and his owner simply because Dexter is not a dog. A housing provider would not.
A housing provider may, however, request written documentation of a verifiable disability related need for the animal when the need is not obvious. Such documentation typically comes from a medical professional. Despite what you may have heard, an Internet generated certificate is not sufficient. A housing provider may not ask specific questions about the disability, it's onset or it's likelihood to continue. So if Dexter's owner could provide written documentation of a verifiable disability related need for him, the housing provider would likely have to allow it.
Another piece to the puzzle is reasonableness. A request for accommodation (or modification) would be considered unreasonable if if it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the housing provider or it would fundamentally alter the nature of the provider's operations. HUD's memorandum gives more detail on that but the basic rule of thumb for housing providers is "if it can be done, you should do it".
Finally, the housing provider may not charge for a service or support animal. Why? Because to charge more deposit or more rent for the service animal may put the housing out of reach financially for the individual. How is this different than a pet owner wanting to live with their pet? It's simple really - although the pet lovers of the world will balk at what I'm about to say. Let's say, I have a pet and the landlord tells me I can have the pet only if I pay more money and I can't afford the additional cost. If I really want to live there I have a choice to give my pet to someone else so I can live there. Pet lovers hate when I say that but it is true. The person with the verifiable disability related need for a service or support animal does not have that choice. The service or support animal helps the individual with whatever major life activity is affected by the disability. So a fee would deny the person with the disability would not have an equal opportunity to live in that space.
To the housing providers who are concerned about damage by service or support animals. The law does not absolve the animal's owner from keeping the premises clean and free of damage. And just like any other unit occupant, the housing provider may charge for damages.
For Part I of this series click here. For Part II click here.
Keep smiling and keep moving,
-Paula
Fascinating, really. Such nuance to the rules
ReplyDelete