It’s been 50 years since the Fair Housing Act (FHA) was passed to prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities.
However, a pair of Syracuse, N.Y., property owners are accused of refusing to allow a woman with mental disabilities to keep an assistance animal.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently charged Charles Wallis and Joseph Barton, who operated and managed property via Nolo Contendere LLC, with discrimination for allegedly violating the FHA.
According to the complaint:
The woman signed an agreement with Barton on Jan. 1, 2016, to rent an apartment for one year. The agreement included a policy of prohibiting tenants from keeping any pets besides small fish.
She brought Bella, a Jack Russell terrier, to the apartment two weeks later to serve as an emotional support animal. The woman claimed keeping Bella was medically necessary to help her anxiety and panic attacks.
After Barton discovered Bella one day later during a property visit, the woman requested an exception to the policy, and offered him a letter from her doctor stating the dog was medically necessary.
Barton refused to accept the letter, and said she would be evicted if she kept Bella.
The complainant then moved Bella to her aunt’s house temporarily.
Meanwhile, a fair housing employee called Barton and Wallis seeking a reasonable accommodation for the support animal.
Barton reportedly insisted the woman would not be allowed to keep the dog at the property. Wallis stated he was not required to grant the request, and had the right to evict the woman.
Wallis later wrote the fair housing employee a letter stating he would consider the reasonable accommodation request if the woman provided a $600 security deposit, an insurance policy with coverage between $500,000 and $1 million and health records from her veterinarian.
The woman returned the dog back to the Syracuse property about a month later, and then received her eviction notice.
Syracuse City Court stayed the eviction action during the HUD investigation.
Four months later, the woman gave birth to a child. She, her boyfriend, and the baby moved out of the property. She is claiming the respondents’ actions caused her to suffer out-of-pocket expenses, lost housing opportunity, emotional distress, inconvenience and frustration.
HUD is asking each property owner to pay the woman unspecified monetary damages, as well as a civil penalty to vindicate the public’s interest.
The charge will be heard by a U.S. Administrative Law judge unless any party requests the case be heard in federal court.
The case came to HUD’s attention after the woman called Central New York Fair Housing for help.
“Persons who require assistance animals in order to maintain their independence shouldn’t have their requests for such accommodations unlawfully denied,” HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Anna María Farías said in a news release. “(The court) action reaffirms HUD’s commitment to ensuring that housing providers meet their obligation to comply with the Fair Housing Act.”