Even without reference to the regulations, the FHO must be interpreted as mandating that a landlord "reasonably accommodate" the special needs of a disabled person by removing barriers, such as a "no-pets rule" where it is necessary to allow a disabled person to use and enjoy their housing. The failure to accommodate, unless such accommodation would create an undue hardship on the landlord, constitutes "discrimination" on the basis of disability ...
The Commission finds that Reinaldo's need for a dog may be as important to him as a diabetic's need for insulin. Dr. Sanchez's letter of December 21, 1990 informed the respondent that Reinaldo had a mental disability and that his psychological condition would be greatly helped by having a dog. What degree of need must a disabled person have to merit accommodation ? The Respondent would have us rule that to justify accommodation, a Complainant must show that without the accommodation he would be completely unable to live in the housing. This is not the appropriate standard. A visually impaired tenant could live in housing without a support dog. A wheelchair bound tenant could conceivably reside in a residence which was not totally accessible. The real question is not whether disabled citizens should be able to overcome the barriers to enjoyment of their housing; it is whether the removal of those barriers will allow them to more fully and readily use and enjoy the housing.
Santiago v. Soto
The Commission finds that the Respondent violated the FHO by refusing to reasonably accommodate the mental disability of the Complainant.
Incidentally, Reinaldo not only was awarded the right to have a dog, but also reimbursement for legal fees, medical expenses, and a $25,000 judgment for "pain and suffering."
Next > Even homeowners are not always exempt
