A victory for service animals and their owners:

[Kobutsu]

From: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/04/ruling_says_lan.html


Ruling says landlords must let AIDS patient keep his dog


By Martin Finucane, Globe Staff

A Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination hearing officer has ordered the landlords of a Brighton building to pay $25,000 to a tenant with HIV/AIDS for ordering the man to get rid of his emotional support dog or move.

The MCAD also ruled that the landlords should pay a $5,000 fine, "given their utter intransigence" in refusing to discuss a "reasonable accommodation" with the man.

The complaint was brought against Brighton Gardens LP, which owns the Brighton Gardens building on Tremont Street; Lombardi Corp., a general partner in Brighton Gardens LP; and Michael J. Lombardi, president of the Lombardi Corp.

Lombardi called it "an extraordinary decision because they really haven't pinpointed any discrimination" and vowed to appeal.

A doctor recommended that tenant Richard M. Blake, who has had HIV/AIDS for a number of years, get a support dog because they can help lift a patient's mood and improve their mental and physical health, the hearing officer said in her decision.

Blake got a dog in May 2008. In July 2008, the landlords sent tenants a notice saying that a no-pet policy in their leases would be enforced, beginning Oct. 1.

After unsuccessful attempts to get the landlords to accommodate his disability, Blake filed a discrimination complaint with the commission in December 2008.

The hearing officer determined that Blake was disabled and that "the evidence ... supports a finding that requiring Complainant to give up his dog would seriously jeopardize his emotional and physical well-being."

Lombardi said, "My firm did not knowingly discriminate against anybody."

He said the property managers never had any idea that Blake was in a legally protected class -- being disabled -- until "late in the game."

"None of this information was disclosed to property management at the time he was told he had to get rid of his dog," he said.

He also criticized the monetary award by the hearing officer, saying, "I don't know how they got to their number because it's pure fiction from our perspective."

The hearing officer ruled last week. The landlords can appeal the decision to the full commission.

 

[heather pluciennik]

Good news for Blake and his owners. This is a good story with a happy ending.

 

[pabusinesswoman]

Happy ending?

Being on the landlord side of this and from what I just read (unless I missed something), it looks like it was a universal policy across the board not particurally pinpointing this gent. Something sounds a little fishy here.. sounds like there may be more to the story than is here.

Many landlords make a universal policy of no pets in rentals for the simple fact that many ... not all folks let their pets ruin the rental house. Unfortunately those few bad apples ruin it for others. In many senarios, there is not enought funds for a landlord to recoop all of the damages. Some tenants will tell you stories .. so ridiculous that they must think you were born yesterday... just to get a landlord to try to bend the rules for their particular case. If you bend the rules for one, then you must bend them for all. So, most will say no. The contracts are in place for a reason. It states the no pet policy was in the leases already... they were just enforcing it.

If the no pet policy was known at the time the gent rented the unit, he should have been aware of the no pet policy regardless if they were enforcing at that time. It's the old saying of no means no. It doesn't mean you get an exception just because you want to now. He moved into the unit KNOWING that those were the terms. If the gent did not like the policy he agreed to at time of signing the lease, he should have not signed the lease and looked elsewhere or planned on moving when his lease was up and getting the dog at that time.

Most leases are written in 1 year increments. Some are now written in 2 due to the economy and lower rates will be given for writing the longer term lease. It sounds like, in this senario, the tenant broke the terms of the lease. Why is the landlord paying?

Don't get me wrong, I feel for the man and the need for a service dog. However, if the residency was not working for his needs, he should have moved. His disablility is not the fault of the landlord. The landlord was abiding by the terms of the lease. Why was it not upheld in court? A lease is a leagally binding document.

The people who made the decision should be liable for all damages affiliated with the dog and the property if they force the landlord to keep a dog in a unit that was lined out that it was unacceptable. It's basic breach of contract on the tenant's part.

Unless there is more that is not posted from what was stated above, I hope the landlord wins the appeal.

 

[Kobutsu]

Service animals under the ADA Federal Law are not considered "pets" and it is the landlord's responsibility to educate themselves concerning the law. If there are any questions about this matter you can call the U.S. Department of Justice's toll free ADA Information hot line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TDD).

 

[ardeagold]

Service Dogs must be allowed to go anywhere their handler goes, including
restaurants, schools, buses, taxis, airplanes, stores, movie theatres, concerts,
sporting events, doctor's offices, and any other public place. It is REQUIRED under
federal and state laws that they be allowed. They do not have to wear any specific
identifying gear, including vests. Many Service Dog users choose to dress their
dogs in a vest or other identifying apparel in order to make access easier, as it
avoids many questions and confrontations. This is a personal choice, and is NOT
REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW. It is illegal to ask for any special identification
from Service Dog partners. Some carry ID cards, and may present them voluntarily,
but this also is not required, and should not be expected. You may NOT ask for
"proof" or certification of the dog's training as a condition of entry into your
business.

http://www.servicedogssavelives.org/laws.html


Kobutsu is right. Service dogs are not pets. And even if he signed a lease before getting the dog, since it's a service dog, he's within his rights to have it and keep it no matter what the lease says.

And, even tho the Landlord says he didn't know his tenant was a "protected" class, and wasn't told before the person filed the complaint....I suspect that's not true. My guess would be that was the FIRST thing out of the tenant's mouth.

So, Michelle...since you're also a Landlord, just be aware that you cannot say no to a service dog, no matter what your lease says....

 

[pabusinesswoman]

Service animals under the ADA Federal Law are not considered "pets" and it is the landlord's responsibility to educate themselves concerning the law. If there are any questions about this matter you can call the U.S. Department of Justice's toll free ADA Information hot line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TDD).

I know dogs such as seeing eye dogs cannot be denied.

Perhaps it was just the way I interpreted the terms as written there. I thought dogs in geneneral gave emotional support. I did not see the definition encompassing, "emotional support" under the service capacity. It also states a service dog would be trainied to perform tasks for the benefit of the individual. I interpreted the article that they gent went out and just got a dog and then stated it was for emotional support. I did not notice where there was any metion that that dog had relavant training to perform in such a capacity.

Donna.. the laws are constantly changing.. and their are so many it is to the point of ridiculous. I pay property management to keep up on them all.

 

[ardeagold]

This is a Federal Law...the State must comply.

http://www.ada.gov/

Here are the additional state laws:

http://sdog.danawheels.net/laws/statelaws.shtml

In the case of Service Dogs/animals, I'd suspect that the laws would become *more* pro-service dog, and not less.

Remember, Michelle...you're still protected against the cost of any damages the dog incurs. The lessee would be required to pay for repairs. Also, I believe if the dog harms anyone, or causes problems, you can ask them to leave. Of course, I'd make sure that anything like that would be WELL documented!

A lot of Service Dogs are used for "emotional support" for people with disabilities. Not just to help people "see" or turn on light switches, etc. The key in this case was probably that a physician told the man to get a dog to help him through his illness. The dog then became his "service dog".

 

[Kobutsu]

Here are some references:

http://www.equipforequality.org/resourcecenter/ada_serviceanimals.pdf

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_withbold.htm

http://puppyintraining.com/assistance-dogs-vs-therapy-dogs-whats-the-difference/

http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/node/75

http://www.deltasociety.org/Document.Doc?id=239

http://www.deltasociety.org/Page.aspx?pid=304

http://www.dogguide.net/therapy-dogs-interview.php

 

[Kobutsu]

Service Dogs Rule!

 

[pabusinesswoman]

Ok here..

1- The article when originally read was understood to that the gent's doctor suggested he got a dog for emotional support. The next line says he got a dog. It do NOT say the dog was a service dog.

2- The next line states he requested adjustments for his disability. That did not clarify that the adjustment was specific for the dog in a service capacity. Heck Sadie is emotional support for me. It doesn't make her a certified service dog. No where did I see that the dog specifically had specific training as per stated in the definition of a service dog to meet federal requirements. Therefore, unless the dog is functioning as a properly trained, certified service dog, wouldn't it be still termed as a pet?

3- I have never denied anyone in a service dog capacity in any of my units, and I pay folks to keep up on all of the current laws.

4- Donna.. though they may be responsible..and if.. and only if the dog was clearly defined as a service dog.. which.. per the article itself that the dog was truely a certified/ approved service dog..they would have to be alowed to keep the dog. The article stated service dog in the title per the author's interpretation, but there was not clear evidence that I saw stating this dog was trainied in that capacity, and therefore could have been termed as a pet.

Tennants may have the responsiblity to pay but they also have to still have the "ability" to pay. So knowing they would be responsible for damages is not real reassuring on the landlord end. I have been waiting for about a year now on the money from one tenant that put holes in the wall so bad the repairs took me over $1000.00 to repair the holes alone when they lived there about 6mo.

As stated above the way the article is written, in my opinion lets much open for assumtion.

 

[ardeagold]

Once the dog became "of service" to the man for emotional support...it became a "service dog". Not all service dogs are trained by professional organizations. However, if this man takes the dog to get a TD somewhere, and uses it for HIS therapy...I'd say it could legally fall under the umbrella term of "service dog".

Apparently the case was compelling enough for the court to side with the owner of the dog, but we don't know the details.

 

[pabusinesswoman]

Once the dog became "of service" to the man for emotional support...it became a "service dog". Not all service dogs are trained by professional organizations. However, if this man takes the dog to get a TD somewhere, and uses it for HIS therapy...I'd say it could legally fall under the umbrella term of "service dog".

Apparently the case was compelling enough for the court to side with the owner of the dog, but we don't know the details.

True....operative word there is COULD

It is also quoted above that, "None of this information was disclosed to property management at the time he was told he had to get rid of his dog," he said.

Since, according to the quote above, the tenant did not disclose the information that the dog was working in a service capacity, how would the landlord know any different than to follow the rules on pets. The landlord cannot read minds that the dog was working in a service capacity and, therefore, from the standpoint of what was disclosed to the landlord was that the animal was a pet. The federal law, from the landlord (educated or not about the above stated law) standpoint should not have applied in this application since the tenant did not fully disclose.

The point was that the fact the dog was allegedly working in a service capacity was brought up after the fact of the issue at hand.

 

[Kobutsu]

So this was taken to court and the judge sided with Mr. Blake to the tune of $30,000.00

The landlord/management can appeal as is their right. I, for one, trust that Mr. Blake will stand. I lived with a blind woman for a number of years and the discrimination and indignities we experienced with her guide-dog were appalling. Landlords/management needs to be very careful in making their own interpretation of the law even with paid advisors. Often we tend to make our interpretations of the law shaded by our own vested interests. Ultimately, what was reported in the article, as in the vast majority of "news reports," is potentially inaccurate, probably incomplete and possibly misleading. An appeal may reveal more information – if the landlord decides to risk further legal entanglement and potential monetary loss.

 

[pabusinesswoman]

Kobutsu-

I like to read as much info. on as many topics as I can..thanks for the info.

I am sorry to hear about the blind woman you with whom you resided. Though he did not use a service dog, my dad was wheelchair bound for 25 years until his death. He also ran into issues...discrimintion wise... not specifically landlord related. So, I know where your comming from. However, that being said, not everyone in that capacity is the same. One needs to be looked upon on their own, indivudual merit.

"Often we tend to make our interpretations of the law shaded by our own vested interests" .. this is so true.. this also goes both ways. Do you know how much money I actually let myself loose by trying to do the "right" thing just to be stabbed in the back? I have always really dispised stereotypes.

If the man was definitely wronged, kudos to him. From that article though, it did not clarify that the decision was fair or just. It's one of those situations where one would have liked to be a fly on the wall to hear the whole story.

It looks like Harley is a wonderful service dog for you. He looks quite good on his badge.

 

[NewfDad]

Just stating some facts here.

1).the case went to a commission not a court
2) under Ada emotional support dogs are not service dogs. A service dog must be trained to perform some task that applies to an disability covered under Ada. Emotional issues are not covered under Ada. Service dogs for the blind if trained are.
3) Ada is a lot more limited than folks think even though the courts recently expanded it's scope.
4) the law rarely recognizes dogs as service dogs that don't have certifications.

Were this case to go to a court with a judge the dog owner would lose. This is sad but no law supports this situation. Sadly this is much the same situation that parents find themselves in with autism support dogs in schools, it's bad but in truth Ada in it's current form does not actually apply.

 

[CMDRTED]

There is no such thing as a "Certified" service dog. This has been discussed in previous threads. My ex-SIL has a service dog. While it has received training, it is not "Certified."

 

[NewfDad]

certifications

Maybe a better way to put it is an acceptance that the animal has passed a formal training program. It is tough to make it through the courts if you trained it your self.

 

[BLCOLE]

I know dogs such as seeing eye dogs cannot be denied.

FYI, same goes for dogs used by DEAF people. You've met me, and you met my previous dog Vinnie. You may not know that I used Vinnie as a "hearing ear" dog.

In the case of Vinnie, I cannot hear a doorbell, fire alarm or phone ring without my hearing aids in place. Vinnie fulfilled this function, especially at night; I don't wear my hearing aids to bed...

 

[pabusinesswoman]

FYI, same goes for dogs used by DEAF people. You've met me, and you met my previous dog Vinnie. You may not know that I used Vinnie as a "hearing ear" dog.

In the case of Vinnie, I cannot hear a doorbell, fire alarm or phone ring without my hearing aids in place. Vinnie fulfilled this function, especially at night; I don't wear my hearing aids to bed...

I know they cannot be denied either.. along with several disablities.

I hope you can get a new service dog to help you out Brad. Vinnie was a wonderful boy! Sadie loved his ear cleanings... boy she was soaked

The point was..in this particular article...and the more I review it .. I think the discrepency lies in the way it was written.

The way the article is deplicted it comes across to me as the tenant did not disclose the animal was a service dog until after proceedings were in place. There was also no evidence that the dog was trained for service. It just said he got a dog.

The disability itself was discussed, but it does not state the role of the dog in a support roll for that disability.

If that is the case, my point was I did not think the landlord should be at fault if the role of the dog as a service dog was not stated. That would be on the part of the tenant to divuldge that information. The landlord is quoted that they were not informed the dog was used for service until "late in the game." Therefore, it is would be totally acceptable for the landlord to look at the dog from a pet prospective and proceed as such.

Now.. if they were told upfront the dog was a used in a role as a service dog to aid with the man's disability and suggested by the doctor. That's a whole 'nother story. I did not interpret the article in that way.

Donna- noticed about you said above that you would think that the service capability of the dog would be the first thing out of the tenant's mouth. Now not knowing the gent, I don't know in this particular senario so.. I don't know he this get would proceed as such... but I have had issues where a service tech, property mananger, and my husband all went over to fix an "issue" with the property and the tenant gave 3 different pitty stories to all 3 folks. Each story was different. How, from a landlord standpoint do you know which to believe?

Also, it would depend how it was worded... if the tenant stated I have this dog.. can't get rid of it 'cause it helps me out. Sadie helps me pulling her cart. I would not interpret that as a service dog. That's a far cry from, Mr./Ms. Landlord this dog is my service dog that I must have to aid me with my disabity.

 

[baloobear2]

Cases like these are being won frequently by the tenant with the disability. This man has AIDS which has the potential for many comorbidity diagnosis such as depression. He is exercising his rights with regard to the fair housing law which prevents discrimination aganist someone needing a support or service animal as a reasonable accommodation to live in their dwelling. However, it is important to note that when someone gets an animal for emotional support that it doesn't mean that they are automatically a service dog. The law which he won under is with regard to fair housing law and discrimination however, as of March 15, 2011 there a changes to the ADA that will no longer recognize emotional support animals as service animals. You are encouraged to review the ADA’s website (www.ada.gov) to learn about the ADA and the changes to it. Two pages we recommend are:

Part 35 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services
Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities

Please note:

Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) will no longer be recognized as service animals under the ADA effective March 15, 2011.
The ADA’s definition of ‘service animal’ applies only to dogs and, in certain cases, miniature horses. He may still have his support animal in his home however unless this dog fits the classification of what the ADA considers a service dog he may not qualify for accommodation for public access with his dog.