Emotional support animals (such as the one pictured above) are often denied housing by landlords who require substantial evidence of their beneficial role in their owner’s life. Landlords not allowing emotional support animals in their properties may be in violation of the law (Courtesy of Aliyha gill/opinion editor).
Mental health has become less of a taboo topic, allowing people to reach out and get the help they need. Among the many resources for mental health are emotional support animals, which have become more popular, but laws pertaining to their protection are unclear.
According to the Fair Housing Act, housing providers must make “reasonable accommodations” and allow reasonable modifications that may be necessary so persons with disabilities can live comfortably. This means that housing providers cannot deny housing to an ESA, nor can they require an additional “pet housing” fee, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
All that is legally required is proof that the ESA is beneficial to its owner, typically in the form of a letter from a licensed mental health professional. However, the required amount of proof is unregulated by any law, which may warrant landlords to bypass ESA rights.
For instance, in Kennedy Street Quad v. Nathanson, tenants were denied their right to their emotional support dog. While both individuals had physical and mental disabilities, as well as supporting “evidence from physicians and a psychologist demonstrating that maintaining the dog helped to ameliorate their symptoms of depression,” they lost the case because the court did not view their evidence as substantial.
The court ruled that the tenants “failed to present any medical or psychological evidence to demonstrate that the dog was actually necessary in order for them to enjoy the apartment,” as stated in New York Law Journal. It is unjust that these tenants were expected to acquire more evidence, when there are no laws that regulate the exact type of proof that is required.
As it stands, the HUD says, “a person seeking the accommodation must submit reliable documentation of the disability and disability-related need for the assistance animal if the disability is not known or readily apparent.”
Requiring “reliable documentation” that an ESA is needed may violate the confidentiality between doctors and their patients. Before releasing any bit of information to an outside party, a licensed mental health specialist must receive explicit consent from their patient, according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
“The assistance animal is not a pet,” according to HUD. Although ESAs are not service animals, they are still assistant animals that aid people with disabilities to live a comfortable lifestyle and should be viewed as such.
Landlords may be hesitant about housing animals due to the possibility of damages. The FHA evaluates ESAs on a “case-by-case” basis, meaning they conduct “an individualized assessment of the specific assistance animal to determine the potential damage,” according to Animal Law. ESAs that do not pass this assessment will not be granted immunity from a landlord’s pet restrictions.
Additionally, most leases hold their tenants accountable for any damages. Therefore, it is clear that property damage—either from the human or their ESA—will be covered by the tenant.
The laws pertaining to ESAs should be thorough and protective of individuals with disabilities and their privacy. In their current state, ESA laws inadvertently neglect to guarantee such people from housing discrimination.