Karen Cohen has a medically documented severe allergy to pet dander that causes nasal congestion, swollen sinuses, excess coughing, and, at times, a swollen throat. Due to her severe pet allergies, Cohen sought an apartment building that did not allow pets. After Cohen moved into her apartment, another tenant, David Clark requested a reasonable accommodation to have his emotional support animal (ESA), a dog, with him on the apartment premises. The request was made one month after his lease began.
The landlord assigned separate stairwells to each tenant and installed an air purifier for Cohen’s apartment. However, the accommodations didn’t work. Her nose was constantly stuffy, her sinuses were swollen, she was constantly coughing and her throat felt as if it was beginning to swell.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a no-pets apartment building should not have allowed the new tenant to have an emotional support dog after an objection by another tenant with severe allergies. The court ruled in favor of Cohen in her lawsuit for breach of her lease’s no-pets provision and interference with her “quiet enjoyment” of her apartment.
The landlord’s accommodation for the dog wasn’t reasonable because the tenant with allergies to pet dander had “priority in time,” and her severe allergies had been medically documented. The court noted that this case is not a one-size-fits-all test that will create the same result under different circumstances, such as when the animal at issue is a service animal for a visually disabled person.
The court said that its decision aligns with those of other decisions including:
• A 2019 decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati rejecting a tenant’s request to ban smoking in her condo complex because of her asthma. The court said a smoking ban would fundamentally alter the complex’s smoking policy and would intrude on the rights of third parties.
• A 2018 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that found that an employer did not engage in disability discrimination by banning a worker’s emotional support dog partly due to co-workers’ dog allergies.
• A 2013 decision by the 4th Circuit at Richmond, Virginia, holding that potential injury to third parties is a relevant factor in determining whether a rejected accommodation request violated fair housing law.
To prevent emotional support animal lawsuits, view New York landlord attorney Robert Friedman’s seminar video or call him at 585-484-7432