A suburb in Cincinnati, Ohio, is violating federal fair housing law by refusing to let a disabled girl keep a small horse as a service animal, says the child’s mother in a lawsuit she has filed on behalf of her daughter.

Ingrid Anderson and the group Housing Opportunities Made Equal, or HOME, filed the lawsuit recently against the city of Blue Ash.

A treatment center where the child obtained medical services recommended the miniature horse for Anderson’s daughter, who has disabling physical ailments, as reported in The Cincinnati Enquirer.

The girl uses the horse — named Ellie, about the size of a large dog — for physical support to walk around in her yard and to help her pull herself up after falls.

Blue Ash officials apparently characterized the horse as “livestock” and said it had to be removed from the home. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati was a last resort after negotiations failed.

The lawsuit was filed in an effort to prevent the city from enforcing the ordinance against Anderson’s family and other disabled people in like situations. It also seeks punitive and compensatory damages. A jury will decide the outcome.

A woman with medical issues and her medical service dog were kicked off of a Southwest Airlines flight in

November of 2013 because a crew member didn’t like the dog’s breed, and possibly the fact that the woman was wearing a T-shirt the crew member might not have approved of— this could be an expensive mistake on the part of Southwest! Not quite feeling the “Luv” now, are we?

Schuyler McGraw, 34, of Oakland, CA, is under the care of a psychiatrist and takes medication for PTSD. She also has a obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). She was the victim of abuse as a child and has physical seizures. To help predict and prevent those seizures, she has a Staffordshire bull terrier, whose name is “Lux.” When the dog senses a seizure onset, Lux signals to McGraw, hovers near her, and leans on her, as the San Jose Mercury News reports.

Crew members asked McGraw to leave the plane, despite McGraw’s presentation of a recently dated handwritten note from her psychiatrist which reads “(McGraw) requires a dog as an accommodation for air travel. The dog has the ability to predict and prevent medical problems such as seizures.”

McGraw said she contacted the airline two days before her flight to make sure that Lux would be permitted on board. Southwest confirmed on the phone that it wouldn’t be a problem so long as she had a note.

“Our employees are responsible for the safety and well-being of all passengers and their animals on our aircraft,” Southwest spokesman Dan Landson said. “We take customer service very seriously … and we are working with the customer to resolve the situation.”

The airline refunded McGraw her $651 ticket for the flight she could not take, which she accepted, but she would not accept an offer of an additional credit for a future flight.

“She tried to apologize, tried to offer me miles. I said, ‘Save it, this is a discrimination case, this is not about the money.’ I don’t want to fly on their miles. I don’t want to fly their airline again. She called me with a very cheap solution to a very expensive situation.”

McGraw has rights under the ADA and Dept. of Transportation Regulations to have her service dog on board with her. Stay tuned to see if this escalates into a lawsuit or other claim.

In Panama City Beach in October of 2013, a woman and her husband were not permitted entry to a  Halloween party after a disagreement with the bar’s staff over whether her service animal could gain access, according to a police report filed.

Bennie and Mary Gray were planning to attend a Halloween party at Tootsie’s Orchid Lounge at Pier Park. Police were called after a bouncer told the couple that Mary’s service dog could not be inside the bar. Although the bar bouncer asked to see “papers,” Bennie was quick to explain that the ADA does not require such paperwork.

Mary, 36 years old, has multiple sclerosis and her service dog, which she has owned for eight years, alerts her to the onset of seizures. Mary had made a costume for her service dog and they were celebrating Bennie’s birthday as well.

“She cried all night long,” Bennie Gray said this week. “They ruined her night.”

It is unknown whether a lawsuit has been filed against the bar.

Visit this news article for more: http://www.newsherald.com/news/couple-booted-from-bar-after-dispute-over-service-dog-1.239144?page=0

BY DR. PATTY KHULY

KHULYP@BELLSOUTH.NET

Read more: http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/12299/1271593-56.stm#ixzz2BU97dRn6

For a copy of the actual PDF file copy of the official notice, you may download it by clicking here>> HUD April 2013 SA and ESA Definitions

Why should you download this notice?

If you are disabled and need the assistance of an animal to alleviate the symptoms of your disability, but you have a landlord who is not knowledgeable or aware of his or her legal obligations under housing laws to accommodate your need for an emotional support animal, then you can give your landlord a copy of this notice when you make your request for accommodation.

The language of the notice is cut and pasted below for your reference, but you should download the PDF version for your file:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WASHINGTON, DC 20410-2000

OFFICE OF FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

SPECIAL ATTENTION OF:

HUD Regional and Field Office Directors of Public and Indian Housing (PIH); Housing; Community Planning and Development (CPD), Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity; and Regional Counsel; CPD, PIH and Housing Program Providers

Issued: April 25, 2013

Expires: Effective until Amended, Superseded, or Rescinded

Subject: Service Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities in Housing and HUD-Funded Programs

1. Purpose:

This notice explains certain obligations of housing providers under the Fair Housing Act (FHAct), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with respect to animals that provide assistance to individuals with disabilities. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) amendments to its regulations1 for Titles TT and III of the ADA limit the definition of “service animal” under the ADA to include only dogs, and further define “service animal” to exclude emotional support animals. This definition, however, docs not limit housing providers’ obligations to make reasonable accommodations for assistance animals under the FHAct or Section 504. Persons with disabilities may request a reasonable accommodation for any assistance animal, including an emotional support animal, under both the FHAct and Section 504. In situations where the ADA and the FHAct/Section 504 apply simultaneously (e.g., a public housing agency, sales or leasing offices, or housing associated with a university or other place of education), housing providers must meet their obligations under both the reasonable accommodation standard of the FHAct/Section 504 and the service animal provisions of the ADA.

2. Applicability:

This notice applies to aJJ housing providers covered by the FHAct, Section 504, and/or the ADA(2).

3. Organization:

Section I of this notice explains housing providers’ obligations under the FHAct and Section 504 to provide reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities3 with assistance animals.

Section II explains DOJ’s revised definition of “service animal” under the ADA. Section Til explains housing providers’ obligations when multiple nondiscrimination laws apply.

Section 1: Reasonable Accommodations for Assistance Animals under the FHAct and Section 504

The FHAct and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) implementing regulations prohibit discrimination because of disability and apply regardless of the presence of Federal financial assistance. Section 504 and HUD’s Section 504 regulations apply a similar prohibition on disability discrimination to all recipients of financial assistance from HUD. The reasonable accommodation provisions of both laws must be considered in situations where persons with disabilities use (or seek to use) assistance animals4 in housing where the provider forbids residents from having pets or otherwise imposes restrictions or conditions relating to pets and other animals.

An assistance animal is not a pet. It is an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person’s disability. Assistance animals perform many disability-related functions, including but not limited to, guiding individuals who are blind or have low vision, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to sounds, providing protection or rescue assistance, pulling a wheelchair, fetching items, alerting persons to impending seizures, or providing emotional support to persons with disabilities who have a disability-related need for such supp01t. For purposes of reasonable accommodation requests, neither the FHAct nor Section 504 requires an assistance animal to be individually trained or certified.5 While dogs are the most common type of assistance animal, other animals can also be assistance animals.

Housing providers are to evaluate a request for a reasonable accommodation to possess an assistance animal in a dwelling using the general principles appUcable to all reasonable accommodation requests. After receiving such a request, the housing provider must consider the following:

(1) Does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability- i.e., a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities?

(2) Does the person making the request have a disability-related need for an assistance animal? fn other words, does the animal work, provide assistance, perform tasks or services for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provide emotional support that alleviates one or more of the identified symptoms or effects of a person’s existing disability?

If the answer to question (1) or (2) is “no,” then the FHAct and Section 504 do not require a modification to a provider’s “no pets” policy, and the reasonable accommodation request may be denied.

Where the answers to questions (1) and (2) are “yes,” the FHAct and Section 504 require the housing provider to modify or provide an exception to a “no pets” rule or policy to permit a person with a disability to Jive with and use an assistance animal(s) in all areas of the premises where persons are normally allowed to go, unless doing so would impose an undue financial and administrative burden or would fundamentally alter the nature of the housing provider’s services.

The request may also be denied if: (1) the specific assistance animal in question poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation, or (2) the specific assistance animal in question would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation. Breed, size, and weight limitations may not be applied to an assistance animal. A determination that an assistance animal poses a direct threat of harm to others or would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others must be based on an individualized assessment that relies on objective evidence about the specific animal’s actual conduct- not on mere speculation or fear about the types of harm or damage an animal may cause and not on evidence about harm or damage that other animals have caused. Conditions and restrictions that housing providers apply to pets may not be applied to assistance animals.

For example, while housing providers may require applicants or residents to pay a pet deposit, they may not require applicants and residents to pay a deposit for an assistance animal.6

A housing provider may not deny a reasonable accommodation request because he or she is uncertain whether or not the person seeking the accommodation has a disability or a disability related need for an assistance animal. Housing providers may ask individuals who have disabilities that are not readily apparent or known to the provider to submit reliable documentation of a disability and their disability-related need for an assistance animal. If the disability is readily apparent or known but the disability-related need for the assistance animal is not, the housing provider may ask the individual to provide documentation of the disabilityrelated need for an assistance animal. For example, the housing provider may ask persons who are seeking a reasonable accommodation for an assistance animal that provides emotional support to provide documentation from a physician, psychiatrist, social worker, or other mental health professional that the animal provides emotional support that alleviates one or more of the identified symptoms or effects of an existing disability. Such documentation is sufficient if it establishes that an individual has a disability and that the animal in question will provide some type of disability-related assistance or emotional support.

However, a housing provider may not ask a tenant or applicant to provide documentation showing the disability or disability-related need for an assistance animal if the disability or disability-related need is readily apparent or already known to the provider. For example, persons who are blind or have low vision may not be asked to provide documentation of their disability or their disability-related need for a guide dog. A housing provider also may not ask an applicant or tenant to provide access to medical records or medical providers or provide detailed or extensive information or documentalion of a person’s physical or mental impairments. Like all reasonable accommodation requests, the determination of whether a person has a disability-related need for an assistance animal involves an individualized assessment. A request for a reasonable accommodation may not be unreasonably denied, or conditioned on payment of a fee or deposit or other terms and conditions applied to applicants or residents with pets, and a response may not be unreasonably delayed. Persons with disabilities who believe a request for a reasonable accommodation has been improperly denied may file a complaint with HUD.7

Section II: The ADA Definition of “Service Animal”

In addition to their reasonable accommodation obligations under the FHAct and Section 504, housing providers may also have separate obligations under the ADA. DOJ’s revised ADA regulations define “service animal” narrowly as any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. The revised regulations specify that “the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.”8 Thus, trained dogs are the only species of animal that may qualify as service animals under the ADA (there is a separate provision regarding trained miniature horses\ and emotional support animals are expressly prech~ded from qualifying as service animals under the ADA. The ADA definition of “service animal” applies to state and local government programs, services activities, and facilities and to public accommodations, such as leasing offices, social service center establishments, universities, and other places of education. Because the ADA requirements relating to service animals are different from the requirements relating to assistance animals under the FHAct and Section 504, an individual’s use of a service animal in an ADAcovered facility must not be handled as a request for a reasonable accommodation under the FHAct or Section 504. Rather, in ADA-covered fac ilities, an animal need only meet the definition of “service animal” to be allowed into a covered facility.

To determine if an animal is a service animal, a covered entity shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person’s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A covered entity may ask: (1) Is this a service animal that is required because of a disability? and (2) What work or tasks has the animal been trained to perform? A covered entity shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. These are the only two inquiries that an ADA-covered facility may make even when an individual’s disability and the work or tasks performed by the service animal are not readily apparent (e.g., individual with a seizure disability using a seizure alert service animal, individual with a psychiatric disability using psychiatric service animal, individual with an autism-related disability using an autism service animal).

A covered entity may not make the two permissible inquiries set out above when it is readily apparent that the animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person’s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability). The animal may not be denied access to the ADA-covered facility unless: (l) the animal is out of control and its handler does not take effective action to control it; (2) the animal is not housebroken (i .e., trained so that, absent illness or accident, the animal controls its waste elimination); or (3) the animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level by a reasonable modification to other policies, practices and procedures. 10 A determination that a service animal poses a direct threat must be based on an individualized assessment of the specific service animal’s actual conduct not on fears, stereotypes, or generalizations. The service animal must be permitted to accompany the individual with a disability to all areas of the facility where members of the public are normally allowed to go. 11

Section Ill. Applying Multiple Laws

Certain entities will be subject to both the service animal requirements of the ADA and the reasonable accommodation provisions of the FHAct and/or Section 504. These entities include, but are not limited to, public housing agencies and some places of public accommodation, such as rental offices, shelters, residential homes, some types of multifamily housing, assisted living facilities, and housing at places of education. Covered entities must ensure compliance with all relevant civil rights laws. As noted above, compliance with the FHAct and Section 504 does not ensure compliance with the ADA. Similarly, compliance with the ADA’s regulations does not ensure compliance with the FHAct or Section 504. The preambles to DOJ’s 2010 Title II and Title Ill ADA regulations state that public entities or public accommodations that operate housing facilities “may not use the ADA deiinition [of “service animal”] as a justification for reducing their FHAct obligations.” 12

The revised ADA regulations also do not change the reasonable accommodation analysis under the FHAct or Section 504. The preambles to the 2010 ADA regulations specifically note that under the FHAct, “an individual with a disability may have the right to have an animal other than a dog in his or her home if the animal qualifies as a ‘reasonable accommodation’ that is necessary to afford the individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, assuming that the use of the animal does not pose a direct threat.”13 In addition, the preambles state that emotional support animals that do not qualify as service animals under the ADA may “nevertheless qualify as permitted reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities under the FHAct.”14 While the preambles expressly mention only the FHAct, the same analysis applies to Section 504.

In cases where all three statutes apply, to avoid possible ADA violations the housing provider should apply the ADA service animal test first. This is because the covered entity may ask only whether the animal is a service animal that is required because of a disability, and if so, what work or tasks the animal has been been trained to perform. If the animal meets the test for “service animal,” the animal must be permitted to accompany the individual with a disability to all areas of the facility where persons are normally allowed to go, unless (I) the animal is out of control and its handler does not take effective action to control it; (2) the animal is not housebroken (i.e., trained so that, absent iJlness or accident, the animal controls its waste elimination); or (3) the animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be  eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level by a reasonable modification to other policies, practices and procedures. 15

If the animal does not meet the ADA service animal test, then the housing provider must evaluate the request in accordance with the guidance provided in Section I of this notice.

It is the housing provider’s responsibility to know the applicable laws and comply with each of them.

Section IV. Conclusion

The definition of “service animal” contained in ADA regulations does not limit housing providers’ obligations to grant reasonable accommodation requests for assistance animals in housing under either the FHAct or Section 504. Under these laws, rules, policies, or practices must be modified to permit the use of an assjstance animal as a reasonable accommodation in housing when its use may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling and/or the common areas of a dwelling, or may be necessary to allow a qualified individual with a disability to participate in, or benefit from, any housing program or activity receiving financial assistance from HUD.

Questions regarding this notice may be directed to the HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, telephone 202-619-8046.

FOOTNOTES:

1 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 56164 (Sept. 15, 20 I 0) (codified at 28 C.F.R. pan 35); Nondiscrimjnation on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 56236 (Sept. 15, 20 I 0) (codified at 28 C.F.R. part 36).

2 Title II of the ADA applies to public entities, including public entities that provide housing. e.g., public housing agencies and state and local government provided housing, including housing at state universities and other places of education. In the housing context, Title III of the ADA applies to public accommodations, such as rental offices, shelters, some types of multifamily housing, assistcd living facilities and housing at places of public education. Section 504 covers housing providers that receive federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Fair Housing Act covers virtually all types of housing, including privately owned housing and federally assisted housing, with a few limjted exceptions.

3 Reasonable accommodations under the FHAct and Section 504 apply to tenants and applicants with disabilities, family members with disabilities, and other persons with disabilities associated with tenants and applicants. 24 CFR §§ I 00.202; I 00.204; 24 C.F.R. §§ 8.11, 8.20, 8.21, 8.24, 8.33, and case law interpreting Section 504.

4 Assistance animals arc sometimes referred to as “service animals,” “assistive animals, “support animals,” or “therapy animals.” To avoid confusion with the revised ADA “service animal” definition discussed in Section 11 of this notice, or any other standard, we use the term “assistance animal” to ensure that housing providers have a clear understanding of their obligations under the FHAct and Section 504.

5 For a more detailed discussion on assistance animals and the issue of training, sec the preamble to HUD’s final rule, Pet Ownership for the Elderly and Persons With Disabilities, 73 Fed. Reg. 63834,63835 (October 27, 2008).

6 A housing provider may require a tenant to cover the costs of repairs for damage the animal causes to the tenant’s dwelling unit or the common areas, reasonable wear and tear excepted, if it is the provider’s practice to assess tcnanls for any damage they cause to the premises. For more information on reasonable accommodations, see the Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act, http://www.hud.gov/oftices/lheollihrary/huddojstatement.pdf.

7 Ibid.

8 28 C.F.R. § 35. 104; 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.

9 28 C.F.R. § 35. I 36(i); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c)(9).

10 28 C.F.R § 35.136; 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c).

11 For more information on ADA requirements relating to service animals, visit DOJ’s website at www.ada.gov.

12 75 Ped. Reg. at 56166, 56240 (Scrt. 15, 20 I 0).

13 75 Fed. Reg. at 56194, 56268.

14 75 Fed. Reg. at 56166, 56240,

15 28 C.F.R § 35.136; 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c).

This article is reprinted with the permission of its author, Jon Schultz, of the Colfax Record. The original article is located at the Colfax Record website at: http://www.colfaxrecord.com/article/subway-turns-away-colfax-woman-service-dog

Subway turns away Colfax woman with service dog

A Colfax woman said she felt discriminated against when a manager of a local Subway restaurant demanded to see documentation for her service dog before taking her order.

Jennifer Lubrant, 42, uses her service dog for both physical and emotional support to help her overcome some of the challenges she faces because of her various health afflictions.

While a business can ask if an animal is a service animal and inquire about what it does to help its master, it is not allowed to request documents about the animal or the individual’s health, said Alan Goldstein, managing attorney for the Sacramento regional office of Disability Rights California.

Lubrant’s dog, a 7-month-old chocolate lab named Bear, is a service animal in training, so Goldstein said state law requires it to be on a leash and wear a tag identifying it as a guide dog.

Lubrant said Bear met those requirements, but the store manager insisted on seeing documentation, even after she tried to explain what the manager could legally ask her. Lubrant said the manager, who she identified as Sylvia, responded by saying all restaurants request paperwork for service animals

“I’m like, ‘You need to check the law,’” Lubrant said. “She’s like, ‘I know it. We’ve always had this policy.’”

Reached by phone, the manager directed comment to Subway’s corporate headquarters, which responded in an email to the Journal.

The statement explained that all Subway restaurants are individually owned and operated by franchisees who are obligated to follow “all applicable laws.”

“We provide our franchisees with materials about the acceptance of service animals, and they provide this information to their employees,” Subway said. “We have asked our franchisee in Colfax to look into this matter and it is our understanding that the franchisee has reached out to the customer to attempt to resolve the issue.”

Lubrant said Monday she has not heard from anyone from the Subway in Colfax since the incident on April 23. After it happened, she called to lodge a complaint with the corporate office.

She said the Subway representative’s response a day later gave her the impression it wasn’t being treated as a “big deal.”

Lubrant said she was told by the representative, whose name she could not recall, that she was not discriminated against, that it was a misunderstanding and the employee was just trying to ensure Bear was a service dog.

“I really don’t feel like it’s my responsibility to educate employees of a business that should know the law already,” Lubrant said. “And (the manager) continued to argue with me about it, and my husband and I were next in line, so we’re standing there and we waited a few moments and we didn’t get any service so I’m like, ‘Well, let’s go.’”

They took their business to Taco Bell, she said.

“There’s only a few places in Colfax to eat out,” Lubrant said. “And to lose one of them that I’m not going to frequent any more is kind of sad, but I can’t really bring myself to go there anymore because I was embarrassed.”

A pair of Subway employees said they had not received training on how to handle service animals.

One of them, Douglas Bella, said he had been working on the line when Lubrant came in with her dog and, when asked about it the following day, he said his manager “asked her nicely the first time.”

“From my point of view, she took the dog out of the car; there was no need for her to have a service animal,” Bella said. “I don’t know what the dog is actually trained to do to help her in whatever situation. …I really saw no reason for her to have the dog in the restaurant.”

Langlee Williams said she has been working at that Subway, located at 350 S Canyon Way, for 4 1/2 years. Williams said she didn’t know whether asking for documentation for service animals was allowed.

“Usually they have vests or something on them,” she said, “but we weren’t really trained whether to say you can’t have a dog in here.”

Lubrant said her service dog relieves several of her health conditions. She said she has chronic pain from fibromyalgia and a hip injury from 25 years ago, and she periodically uses a wheelchair and a cane to get around.

Bear wears a pack that acts as a purse since she can’t bear weight on her upper body, and the dog also provides a momentum boost for when she is walking up an inclined surface, she said.

Lubrant has documentation from her doctor and therapist about her health problems, but she’d rather not disclose it to strangers for the sake of being served, she said.

Goldstein said the law is to protect people from having to do that.

“There’s nothing more personal than someone’s medical information,” he said. “Using a service animal does not open up your medical records to business analysis.

“In my mind this is one of the more basic access issues, so I’m still kind of surprised that businesses don’t know what the law is in this area at this late date.”

Jon Schultz can be reached at jons@goldcountrymedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @Jon_AJNews

In Indiana, an apartment management company near Purdue’s college campus is accused of violating disability laws by demanding that a disabled tenant pay extra to keep a Service Animal in the rental home.

The Indiana Civil Rights Commission announced there is likely probable cause to believe that the landlord violated the state’s Fair Housing Act when it issued an eviction notice to a disabled tenant who refused to pay a “pet fee” for the resident’s service animal.

Allegedly, the resident presented a doctor’s note to management last year, requesting an accommodation to keep the service animal dog at the apartment, despite the building’s no-pet policy.

But management denied the request, stating, “If he needs to keep the dog, then he should have to pay for it,” later issuing a notice of eviction when the additional “pet fee” remained unpaid.

“The Fair Housing Act prevents property owners from denying the use of a service animal and\or charging an additional or ‘pet’ fee. It’s important to note that a service animal is not a ‘pet,'” ICRC Deputy Director Akia Haynes stated in a news release. “It is clear that the complainant is afforded protection by virtue of his disability. Further, the respondent was aware of the complainant’s disability and denied his request for a reasonable accommodation.”

The landlord’s property manager must file an answer to the charge within 30 days.