Hey, there! Log in / Register
Brighton landlord fined for banning man's 'emotional support' dog
By adamg on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:14am
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ruled the owners of a Brighton apartment complex violated state laws against discrimination against the people with disabilities by ordering a man with AIDS to get rid of his dog.
The landlord was ordered to pay the man $25,000 and pay the state $5,000 in fines after the man required the dog to live on his own and function independently both because of his AIDS and because of the death of his mother and sister.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
oh for chrissakes
We have landlords who post ads for "professionals", "single only", "couple only", "female preferred"...and they're taking on bullshit like this?
Nevermind that all this does is de-legitimize *actual* service animals.
If you "need" a dog, do what the rest of the world has to do when they get a pet: make sure you're living in an apartment where that's OK with your lease.
Nice try.
The point is that the tenant had a legit medically reason to have this dog (much akin to having a service animal). which the landlord did not honor. It does not matter whether the lease allowed for a dog or not; medically necessity trumps all.
It does not matter if one thinks this is foolish or not. The law is the law.
The person can live in any apartment with a lease that does not allow dogs. So you comment that he should just move on is weak. Any landlord has to allow for service animals, period.
Does the law recognize
Does the law recognize "emotional support animals"? Given that there have been studies showing that owning a pet can have such benefits as lowering blood pressure and reducing depression, I'd think that anyone could then make a not-completely-unreasonable argument that all pets are a medically necessity...
Yes...
The Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988 put procedures in place that allowed for the modifications of "no pet" policies to permit a person with a disability to keep a pet for emotional support.
The onus is on the person who has the pet to show substantial evidence that the pet is medically necessarily. One would assume that the law is strict on who can claim this right under the law.
from a Bazelon Center fact sheet
A nondisabled person gaining some benefits from a pet wouldn't be covered under the ADA, because there wouldn't be any discrimination against a person with a disability.
Okay...
I think this is really pushing the envelope (what benefit does a disabled person get from a pet - sorry, "service animal" - that a non-disabled person doesn't? And then of course we can let lost down the rabbit hole on what counts as a disability...), but since that is the way the law is written, I guess the landlord may be liable.
Only remaining question I have, from the Boston Globe article, is one of fact; landlord claimed he knew nothing about the tenant's disabled status. I guess that will be addressed upon appeal of the ruling.
No, actually...
There are federal laws defining what constitutes a disability. Also federal laws defining what is required to prove that something allows someone to live substantially more independently. If you're not familiar with these laws, I suggest you read up on them, then ask any questions you might still have.
The federal definitions of service animal and emotional support animal are different. In terms of access, a service animal may enter businesses and other places of public accommodation. An emotional support animal is granted access only in housing and employment.
Without knowing much about the situation,
except what I've just read on this post, I have to disagree with you, Lecil. Pets are important to people, whether they're disabled in some way or not, and it can be particularly important for people with disabilities. First of all, the landlord's doing something illegal; they really can't make one get rid of his or her pet, and secondly, he is putting even more of an onus on the man with the dog and subjecting him to even more duress in addition to what he's under already. I'm glad the landlord was made to pay a fine, but he has to be forced to comply with the law and allow the man with AIDS to keep his dog. What the landlord's doing is just plain bullying and harassment, and that's completely and totally wrong.
Like HP placards,
This type of law is open to all sorts of abuse, but I wonder what protection people with disabilities would have if their pet infringed on the owners/other tennants rights (excessive barking, damage to the apt, unfriendly towards others etc).
Citations Please
Service animals are generally trained by organizations.
Do you have evidence that the law is being abused? Do you have examples of situations where service animals have caused problems? Or are you just speculating that there theoretically could be abuse and maybe dogs cause problems?
Oh I know dogs can cause problems.
But I was just saying that this law could be open to abuse like the HP one which only needs a signature by a doctor. I'm just wondering how hard it would be to have a doctor sign off on someone that has "anxiety" and then that person uses that as an excuse to keep a pet.
I own some property and I allow pets in all of them because I am a pet lover myself. But I have seen first hand the problems that a barking dog can do to neighbors and other tennants. (3-5 year olds kids running on hardwood floors are always the worst problems though :)
Not the case with HP placards
I sometimes fill out the forms for them. It requires a hell of a lot more than a signature. I have to evaluate all different areas of functioning. Sometimes they send it back stating that they need more info, or want their own clinicians to evaluate the person, or want a different kind of specialist to look at one of the issues.
Not that there's never any abuse, but it's not as simple as you think.
As far as animals causing problems, the ADA doesn't give people free rein to violate other laws. If someone's service animal damages a business, the person has to pay for it just like any other damage. Same in an apartment; if it damages the place, you pay for it, and if it's seriously bothering other tenants, they can in fact tell you you can't have it. The only thing that isn't allowed is a landlord flat-out saying "no animals" when it's a type of animal covered under the ADA.
Also, just regular-old anxiety like a lot of people have isn't a disability based on the federal laws defining these things. An anxiety disorder would have to be severe enough to be, well, a disability.
Sadly sometimes all it takes is a signature.
I've actually worked with a unit once which went after HP fraud. The Medical Affairs office has been under some pressure recently to double check a lot of doctors notes, but when Medical Doctors sign the placard form, it usually got approved right away.
Getting the HP
No you dont, you don't need to evaluate anything. You don't even need to have ever met the person. All you need to do is pencil-whip the form and then sign your name at the bottom.
You're making the mistake of assuming that because you are a highly trained, sincere, dedicated person, that everyone else is, too.
What's so wrong about getting a doctor's note?
What's so wrong about obtaining a doctor's note about anxiety and other emotional upsets and/or problems if necessary, so that a person will be able to keep their pet. A dog owner can train his/her dog not to bark out of turn, or to bark excessively in an apartment, if necessary.
I think that kids running around, kids in tantrum, or people who unnecessarily and inconsiderately turn their stereos up to full volumes and leave them blasting most of the night and party loudly when their neighbors are trying to get a good night's sleep so they can go to work, school, or on a long trip or whatever the next day, are the worst of all, because these people can control themselves and/or their kids and frequently refuse to do anything about it.
Because doctors are too easy to get these days.
Thats why.
Any statistics here?
Or is this just speculation based on "common knowledge", etc.?
My own experiences.
I've worked with people who know doctors that will sign anything and I've worked on HP fraud cases as well. Anyone that works in HR knows the types of doctors that are out there and their abliity to write off notes like nothing.
Its not common but if you look hard enough you can find it.
No, YOU produce citations!
The ADA defines "service animal" and "emotional support animal" differently. Service animals have to perform specific task(s) to assist a person with a disability. Neither have to be trained by any particular organization or have any credentials or paperwork or anything. And most psych service animals are self-trained, actually.
The Americans with
The Americans with Disabilities Act allows for landlords and business owners to refuse service animals that pose a threat to the welfare of others. A barking dog qualifies as noise is recognized as a health threat by most local ordinances.
The law covers this
The law on access by service animals makes it clear that the animal cannot create a nuisance and bother other people; it's not a free pass to bring a disorderly animal into a business. For example, if a blind person brings a guide dog into the movies, the dog is not allowed to bark loudly as it narrates the plot.
In seriousness, I've never seen a problematic service animal, though; they tend to be impeccably well trained and either practically invisible or a pleasure to be around.
Bravo, Anon!
I couldn't agree with you more on this one!
Way to go, Lecil!
Your argument is spot-on! As a pet owner myself (With the exception of one long period of time when I went without any pets at all), I've owned exotic birds since I was a sixth grader), who's experienced some undisclosed difficulties in the past, I can sympathize with the man with AIDS who needs to have a pet. Pets not only reduce depression and lower blood pressure. That a**hold of a landlord who tried to deprive the guy of valuable companionship (his dog), deserved to be hit right smack where it hurts the most---in his pocketbook! Let's hope that landlord smartens up and learns a lesson, although I won't hold my breath.
If you don't like it, don't do it yourself!
Oh please have you ever seen a service rat sized dog? It does not matter that this animal could not pick a person up off the floor what matters is the emotional and psychological need the person has for this animal that makes it a service animal. Every pet in the world is a service animal. Psychological tests have proven how much people benefit from owning pets including having less stress and living longer. If you don't like it, don't get a pet. Mind your own business and don't worry about it. That's whats wrong with this world today too many people like you worrying about what everyone else is doing. This man needed this animal who are you to say he didn't, and that others don't?
Seriously?
You are an ignorant bigot. Just because a "service animal" doesn't fit your ignorant description, you make a generalized statement and vilify someone who has a legitimate medical need for the animal he owns. Educate your narrow mind and understand that the world doesn't revolve around you or your disgusting interpretation of the world. Not everyone is you, nor is everyone's needs equal to yours. When you delegitimize others based on your bias interpretation, then you become the spokesperson for everything that IS disability discrimination. Nice job!
Medical need
Without disclosing much, I care for several patients who "require" companion animals. These companion animals make a world of difference for most of these folks. Many have severe depression/anxiety, no support systems, and just no one to be there for them. If having a companion animal keeps them adherent to their medication regimens, walking, getting out of the house, not being suicidal, whatever... then more dogs, please!
Don't be quick to dismiss someone else's emotional need as questionable. You'll sing a different tune if (g-d forbid) you have a chronic debilitating or terminal disease. If a dog keeps the guy going, then the dog is very important to his wellbeing.
so they're becoming dependent on an animal...
...instead of forming relationships with people?
An animal that is not going to live even a fraction of the person's lifetime?
Yeah...that's gonna end well.
Oh good
Oh good, so you're volunteering to go over to the guys house and be his pal? Help try to mitigate another human's pain? That's so awesome of you!
Oh wait, you're not? Great... Good thing he has his dog.
No questioning
Not questioning the emotional need at all. I suspect just about every pet owner would tell you that they are emotionally attached to their pet. I know I am. I am just surprised that this attachment is protected for some people.
Different issues though
It's protected when the person 1) meets the federal definition of having a disability and 2) the animal allows the person to function substantially more typically.
My pets improve my emotional health and quality of life, but I don't have a psychiatric disability and wouldn't have one without my pets either.
An emotional support dog might allow someone to leave the house with the dog instead of staying in because they feel they'll be attacked outside, to tolerate being alone without being paralyzingly paranoid, to feel grounded because they know something is a hallucination if the dog doesn't respond to it, to give hugs and kisses when they're so distraught they're likely to self-harm.
A psychiatric service animal is a bit different and has full protection under the ADA (can go into places that don't allow pets, fly in the airplane cabin, etc.). This type of animal is trained to do specific tasks that the person can't do, like retrieve things or stabilize the person if they're dizzy because of meds, lead them to a safe place if they start dissociating and wandering off, wake the person if they're sedated/disoriented and tend to sleep through alarms.
Okay, that all makes sense
Thank you for the clarification. I'd call those "service animals", but now we're picking nits over semantics. :)
How long before gangbangers get a "prescription" for pit bulls?
This ruling is priceless. Only in Massachusetts. How long before the gangbangers start getting "prescriptions" (via Mass. Health, of course) for "emotional support" pit bulls? Why stop at dogs? Remember the case of Antoine Yates of NYC who kept a 400 pound tiger in his public housing apartment for 16 months? The jealous tiger attacked Yates when he introduced an alligator into the household. What a shame Yates hadn't visited the local clinic for a prescription first, he could have avoided criminal charges. And people wonder why so many employers are fleeing MA.
Seriously?
I'm not even dignifying this with a proper response. Also, this occurs in most states, thanks for playing. Finally, if Massachusetts sucks so bad, you can move to another state. Enjoy.
O-FISH-L you're a real whackjob sometimes
The ADA and the rehabilitation act are federal laws.
And I'm not even responding to any of the rest of your nonsense.
Hey, O-FISH-L!
First of all, this:
has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Secondly, anybody who keeps a wild 400-pound tiger and/or an alligator in their household is a total idiot who's tempting fate. That guy's a candidate for the booby hatch, if he survived the attack by his jealous tiger.
Ridiculous.
This is a ridiculous ruling! The rights of the landlord in Massachusetts are being slowly eroded. Read the actual facts of the case and then make a logical assessment.
Read federal laws from 20
Read federal laws from 20 years ago and then make a logical assessment.
Service animals are always allowed. Full stop.
I'll say!
How dare people with disabilities try and go around saying there's like federal laws protecting against discrimination on the basis of a disability! Just where do they get off?!
No, it is not a ridiculous ruling!
Disabled or not disabled, people should have the right to keep pets in their apartments. If an owner has to train their dog not to bark out of turn, or not to bark excessively, let them do so.
Hey Adam?
Just curious -- why is "emotional support" in quotes? Would "service" dog also go in similar quotes? What's being implied here?
What's being "implied"
I'd never heard the term before, and new ideas usually go in quotes, until they become accepted and then boring and commonplace.
Yeah, I know, I need to get out more. Don't worry, I'm getting out of the house in an hour or so to attend my first Licensing Board hearing in weeks ...
I love scare quotes
Every time I see quotes like that I need to mentally fill in some subtext, as in:
And then he got a "note" (which everyone knows was actually a scribble on the back of a restaurant sugar packet) from his "therapist" (who everyone knows is actually his bookie) saying that he could keep the "dog" (which everyone knows is actually an aardvark) in his "apartment" (which everyone knows is actually a storage closet off the boiler room in his mom's basement.
What's being lost here in this discussion
What's being lost here is any assessment of balance between the rights of a bulding owner to exclude animals from his building and the rights of a disabled person to have a service or emotional support animal.
It's also noteworthy that everyone piles on talking about the rights of the tenant, and the rights of the property owner are scarecly mentioned.
People keep saying, "There's Federal law in place" as though that were some kind of edict handed down to Moses from God himself. Maybe the federal law is over-broad. Maybe it's not. But the question of whether or not a property owner ought to have a right to exclude animals from his property seems like an entirely legitimate topic for discussion.
Duelling doctors' notes?
Here's what I'd pay good money to watch: I'd like for the owner of a two-family to get medical certification that his extreme fear of dogs is a disability, and make the claim that any attempt to force him to accept a dog on his premises would be a violation of the ADA. Then I'd like his tenant to get a note (ideally from the same doctor) certifying his need for a companion dog. Then I'd like to see the landlord and the tenant in court with battling expert witnesses, and I'd like to see the question of who has a more legitimate claim to victim status be played out in the press.