Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp.
169 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fair Housing Act, a landlord's duty to provide a reasonable accommodation for a tenant's disability may require making an exception to a 'no pets' policy for an emotional support animal, even if the animal does not qualify as a traditional service animal. The determination of reasonableness is a fact-specific inquiry requiring a case-by-case analysis.
Facts:
- Brenda Janush suffers from a severe mental health disability.
- Janush's treating psychiatrist testified that her two birds and two cats lessen the effects of her disability and are necessary for her mental health.
- On December 6, 1999, Janush signed a rental agreement for an apartment managed by Charities Housing Development Corp. (CHD), which contained a 'no pets' clause.
- Janush did not disclose the presence of her animals before moving into the apartment on January 2, 2000.
- On January 10, 2000, a maintenance worker discovered the animals in Janush's apartment, leading to a dispute between Janush and CHD.
- On February 7, 2000, CHD initiated eviction proceedings against Janush.
- Janush moved out of the apartment on March 26, 2000.
Procedural Posture:
- Charities Housing Development Corp. (CHD) filed eviction proceedings against Brenda Janush.
- Brenda Janush filed suit in the U.S. District Court (trial court) against CHD, Sherene Bigelow, and Anne Stahr, alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
- The U.S. District Court heard oral arguments on the defendants' motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's refusal to make an exception to its 'no pets' policy for a tenant's emotional support animals, which are necessary for the tenant's mental disability, state a viable claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Whyte, District Judge
Yes. A landlord's refusal to accommodate a tenant's emotional support animals may constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act's reasonable accommodation requirement. The court reasoned that the FHA's protection is not limited to formally trained or certified 'service animals' as defined under state law. The federal definition of service animal is broader, and even if an animal does not meet that definition, a duty to accommodate it may still exist. The core of the FHA inquiry is whether an accommodation is 'reasonable' and 'necessary' to afford the disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. This determination is a highly fact-specific inquiry that requires balancing the tenant's needs against the administrative and financial burdens on the landlord, making it inappropriate for dismissal at an early stage of litigation before discovery has occurred.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for clarifying that the scope of 'reasonable accommodation' under the Fair Housing Act is not coextensive with the definition of 'service animal.' It affirmed that emotional support animals, which may not have specialized training but provide therapeutic benefits for mental or emotional disabilities, can be a form of reasonable accommodation. This ruling prevents landlords from summarily denying such requests based on a blanket 'no pets' policy or a narrow definition of service animals. Consequently, it shifts the legal analysis toward a case-by-case balancing test, requiring landlords to individually assess whether a specific animal is a necessary and reasonable accommodation for a tenant's disability.
Unlock the full brief for Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp.