Warren v. Delvista Towers Condominium Ass'n
2014 WL 3908057, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112993, 49 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) preempts a local ordinance that bans a specific breed of dog when that ordinance is applied to deny a disabled person's reasonable accommodation request to keep an emotional support animal. A housing provider's denial of such a request based solely on the animal's breed constitutes a discriminatory housing practice under the FHA.
Facts:
- Paul Alexander Warren, a resident and owner at Delvista Towers Condominium, was diagnosed with Severe Recurrent Major Depression Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
- Delvista maintains a 'no pet' policy, with exceptions only for birds and fish.
- On June 12, 2013, Warren's psychiatrist sent a letter to Delvista recommending that Warren be allowed to live with his assistance animal, a dog named 'Amir,' as a reasonable accommodation under the FHA.
- Warren also sent a letter directly to Delvista explaining his disability and formally requesting an accommodation to the 'no pet' policy for Amir.
- Delvista's legal counsel responded by requesting additional information and threatening a lawsuit if it was not provided.
- Delvista refused to grant the accommodation, arguing that the request was unreasonable because Amir was allegedly a pit bull, a breed banned by a Miami-Dade County ordinance.
- Despite the denial, Warren continued to keep Amir in his condominium unit.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Alexander Warren (Plaintiff) filed a First Amended Complaint against Delvista Towers Condominium Association, Inc. (Defendant) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- Count I of the complaint alleged that Delvista failed to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
- Delvista filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the accommodation request was per se unreasonable due to a local ordinance.
- The court requested supplemental briefing from both parties on the issue of whether the FHA preempts the local ordinance.
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 housing provider's reliance on a local breed-ban ordinance to deny a disabled person's reasonable accommodation request for an emotional support animal constitute a discriminatory housing practice under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), thereby rendering the local ordinance invalid in that context?
Opinions:
Majority - Martinez, J.
Yes. A housing provider's reliance on a local breed-ban ordinance to deny a reasonable accommodation for an emotional support animal constitutes a discriminatory housing practice, and the FHA's preemption clause invalidates the local ordinance to the extent it permits such discrimination. The FHA requires an individualized assessment of the specific animal, not a categorical exclusion based on breed. The court reasoned that the purpose of the FHA is to provide disabled persons with an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their dwellings, and denying a necessary assistance animal obstructs this purpose. Citing 42 U.S.C. § 3615, the court explained that any local law permitting an action that would be a discriminatory housing practice under the FHA is invalid. Enforcing the Miami-Dade County breed ban against Warren would permit such a practice, making the ordinance 'stand as an obstacle' to the full purposes of Congress. Therefore, the FHA preempts the local ordinance in this context, and the proper inquiry is not the animal's breed but whether the specific animal poses a direct threat that cannot be otherwise mitigated, which is a question of fact.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the supremacy of the federal Fair Housing Act over conflicting local ordinances, particularly in the context of breed-specific legislation. It prevents housing providers from using such ordinances as an absolute defense to deny reasonable accommodation requests for assistance animals. The ruling mandates a shift from broad, breed-based prohibitions to a fact-intensive, individualized assessment of the specific animal's conduct. This significantly strengthens protections for individuals with disabilities who rely on assistance animals, ensuring their rights are not curtailed by local public safety laws that do not allow for case-by-case evaluation.
