Can Landlords Charge Pet Fees For Emotional Support Animals?

The plaintiff/tenant in the U.S. Eastern District Court of Louisiana case  of Henderson v. Five Properties LLC, U.S. Eastern District of Louisiana requested a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Louisiana Equal Housing Opportunity Act (“LEHOA”), specifically seeking a waiver of a $400 animal fee for her dog which was an  Emotional Support Animal (“ESA”).The landlord/defendants’ apartment complex allows animals. However, the only issue was whether defendants had to waive the animal fee for the plaintiff just because she had an ESA. Plaintiff argued that it is always necessary to waive animal fees for people with ESAs to afford them an equal housing opportunity.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a 2004 Joint Statement and HUD issued a 2020 Notice, both of which suggested, and have been interpreted to mean, that landlords can never charge pet fees for people with ESAs. Although not actually the law, this idea was perpetuated through websites selling ESA prescriptions by advertising that purchasers may save money by avoiding animal fees.

The U.S. District Court rejected:

1. The notion that guidance issued by HUD requires housing providers to waive pet fees for people with ESAs. Instead, tenants seeking fee waivers must prove they need them and that their request is reasonable under the circumstances.
2. The argument that landlords always must waive fees for tenants with ESAs. Instead, whether such accommodation is required is a fact-specific, case-by-case determination.

The court held on July 16, 2025:

1. A tenant with an ESA seeking to have her landlord waive a generally applicable animal fee was required to prove that the waiver was both necessary for her to use and enjoy her home and reasonable.
2. It is the role of the courts, not agencies, to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions; that agency interpretations are not law; and that agency interpretations are only entitled to respect if they have the power to persuade.
3. The HUD Notice stating that a housing provider may not charge a fee or deposit for a service animal or other assistance animal “unpersuasive.”
4. A fee waiver is only necessary if it is indispensable and essential to achieve ameliorative effects of the tenant’s disability.
5. Whether a fee waiver is reasonable depends on factors such as “the amount of fees imposed, the relationship between the amount of fees and the overall housing cost, the proportion of other tenants paying such fees, the importance of the fees to the landlord’s overall revenues, and the importance of the fee waiver to the handicapped tenant.”
6. Plaintiff failed to prove she needed a fee waiver because she did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that waiving the fee would alleviate the effects of her disability and the record showed the plaintiff could afford the fee, particularly if given the option to pay in installments.
7. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to the reasonableness of her request considering the fee was a little under 3% of the total cost of the housing, animal fees are relatively typical for leased apartment buildings in which animals are allowed, and the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence about the importance of the animal fee to the defendants’ overall revenue.To prevent tenant discrimination lawsuits,call or text  NY landlord attorneys Robert Friedman and Justin Friedman at 585-484-7432.