HUD filed a Complaint on behalf of the tenant who alleged that the defendants, as the owners and managers of the property that had a ‘no pets’ policy, violated the Fair Housing Act by denying her a reasonable accommodation to allow for an emotional support animal. The Complaint alleged that the tenant requested an accommodation which included a letter from her treating therapist stating her diagnosis, her qualification as a person with a disability and his opinion that the assistance animal would provide emotional support to assist with the tenant’s symptoms. The defendants denied the request and initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant. Additional allegations against the defendants included intimidating and threatening the tenant on account of her exercising her rights under the Fair Housing Act.

The parties entered a Consent Decree whereby the defendants agreed to pay the tenant $8,500 and complete a fair housing training program. At the time they entered into the Consent Decree defendants no longer owned or managed any residential rental properties. A condition of the decree stated if defendants acquire any ownership or management interest of any residential rental property during the terms of the Consent Decree they would then have to adopt a reasonable accommodation policy and inform their residents and employees about the same.

Takeaways:

• HUD continued forward with these charges even though the defendants sold the property.
• Upon notice of tenant’s request for the accommodation, the defendants did not conduct an individualized assessment, and they failed to engage in an interactive process with the tenant concerning her request.