Discrimination Question
Click here for Top Ten Discussions. CLICK HERE for Q & A Homepage
Receive Free Rental Owner Updates Email:  
MrLandlord Q & A
     
     
Discrimination Question (by Still Learning [NH]) Jul 13, 2017 12:49 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Ken [NY]) Jul 13, 2017 1:11 PM
       Discrimination Question (by S i d [MO]) Jul 13, 2017 1:26 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Still Learning [NH]) Jul 13, 2017 1:50 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Robert,Ontario,Can [ON]) Jul 13, 2017 2:23 PM
       Discrimination Question (by David [MI]) Jul 13, 2017 2:36 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Kim [TX]) Jul 13, 2017 2:41 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Johnny B. [MA]) Jul 13, 2017 3:14 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Robert J [CA]) Jul 13, 2017 3:30 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Still Learning [NH]) Jul 13, 2017 4:36 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Vee [OH]) Jul 13, 2017 5:23 PM
       Discrimination Question (by AllyM [NJ]) Jul 13, 2017 6:01 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Still Learning [NH]) Jul 13, 2017 6:20 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Still Learning [NH]) Jul 13, 2017 6:33 PM
       Discrimination Question (by RR78 [VA]) Jul 13, 2017 7:02 PM
       Discrimination Question (by BRAD 20,000 [IN]) Jul 13, 2017 7:09 PM
       Discrimination Question (by RathdrumGal [ID]) Jul 13, 2017 7:59 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Still Learning [NH]) Jul 14, 2017 4:15 AM
       Discrimination Question (by Ken [NY]) Jul 14, 2017 4:23 AM
       Discrimination Question (by Barb [MO]) Jul 14, 2017 5:18 AM
       Discrimination Question (by David [MI]) Jul 14, 2017 5:48 AM
       Discrimination Question (by David [MI]) Jul 14, 2017 5:51 AM
       Discrimination Question (by John... [MI]) Jul 14, 2017 11:38 AM
       Discrimination Question (by Amy [MO]) Jul 14, 2017 12:38 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Kim [TX]) Jul 14, 2017 1:29 PM
       Discrimination Question (by J [FL]) Jul 14, 2017 5:01 PM
       Discrimination Question (by John... [MI]) Jul 14, 2017 5:08 PM
       Discrimination Question (by John... [MI]) Jul 14, 2017 5:11 PM
       Discrimination Question (by J [FL]) Jul 14, 2017 5:33 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Barb [MO]) Jul 14, 2017 9:13 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Amy [MO]) Jul 15, 2017 8:34 AM
       Discrimination Question (by John... [MI]) Jul 15, 2017 9:58 AM
       Discrimination Question (by Ken [NY]) Jul 15, 2017 12:11 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Barb [MO]) Jul 15, 2017 12:20 PM
       Discrimination Question (by John... [MI]) Jul 15, 2017 6:37 PM
       Discrimination Question (by Ray-N-Pa [PA]) Jul 17, 2017 11:29 AM


Discrimination Question (by Still Learning [NH]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 12:49 PM
Message:

Had a discussion about a hypothetical situation with a group of landlords and was curious to other's input. Hypothetical situation - multi-family unit being described as non-smoking, pet free. A few tenants fill vacancies because they have pet allergies and want a pet free building. At the next vacancy someone qualified with a service animal or emotional support animal comes along. The question is who has the rights, who's rights trump the other, and how does the landlord avoid a discrimination case. Our theory is that the service animal and emotional support animal are not pets and can't be denied due to the animals. We were under the assumption the current tenants with allergies were not a protected class, they would move and the landlord would have vacancies to fill. Please weigh in and give your thoughts.

--24.61.xxx.xx




Discrimination Question (by Ken [NY]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 1:11 PM
Message:

You are correct,not a pet so you have to let it in --24.25.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by S i d [MO]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 1:26 PM
Message:

I think a better question would be how having an animal in Unit A affected people living in Units B, C, and D. Unless the HVAC systems are somehow connected and air from one unit flows into the others there shouldn't be any reason to be concerned. If people are so hyper-allergic that a dog living in another unit would affect them, I doubt they could go outside, period. Animals exist outside.

Where I see a much more interesting and plausible case is on an airline. A cabin is an enclosed space and the dander is much more likely to float about. If a person with an ESA sits next to a highly allergic person...or just leaves dander on the seat from shedding and a highly allergic person sits there on the next flight. --173.19.xx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by Still Learning [NH]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 1:50 PM
Message:

Sid - I think we were considering a common hallway.

A friend (who has nothing to do with rental properties) but deals with allergies and keeps on top of allergy topics said housing issues have come up on her allergy board Q & A. There has been discussion that someone with allergies severe enough to trigger asthma could potentially be covered by ADA rules. I have not looked into this but was not aware that allergies might fall under ADA.

Personally, I think allergy court cases or fake ESA issues will play out over airline issues because of the confined quarters. --24.61.xxx.xx




Discrimination Question (by Robert,Ontario,Can [ON]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 2:23 PM
Message:

Would avoid completely anyone who had a dog as if there is hardwood flooring along with carpet then count on the flooring being completely ruined in a short time. It always starts off that my dog never bites or causes problems along with the dog is essential. If the dog and you are happy then why in the world would you want to move. Apartment living is not living in a single family house where noise can be a concern if they leave the dog unattended. In the past just have had too many problems with dogs. They asked if the rental unit is pet friendly when in the ad it is written the rental unit is not pet friendly. If the dog along with pet vandalism is essential then there is no reason to move. Under the human rights code national origin, source of income, sexual orientation, age, marital status are considered but here there is absolutely nothing about dogs. If they want the other tenants to move out then pay the rent on those apartments then dog should be considered. Best to contact a landlords association where Google to find out how cases were dealt with. If you pay a visit where they are living then you will see what is going to happen if you allow them in. --74.220.xxx.xx




Discrimination Question (by David [MI]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 2:36 PM
Message:

" A few tenants fill vacancies because they have pet allergies and want a pet free building. "

Thats where you should give them the disclaimer (prior to signing lease) that while pets are not allowed, federal law requires you to allow service animals --50.4.xxx.x




Discrimination Question (by Kim [TX]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 2:41 PM
Message:

Agree with the lack of discrimination. I guess I'll just make sure that future leases read "no animals," rather than "no pets." Done! --23.30.xx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by Johnny B. [MA]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 3:14 PM
Message:

On the topic of service animals and emotional support animals, is it legal to request the perspective tenant for documentation to prove that the animal is in fact a service animal or emotional support animal? --24.147.xx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by Robert J [CA]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 3:30 PM
Message:

I had a applicant qualify for a unit where the property was "smoke free" AND "dog free". It turns out they have a "pot card", smoked pot with and they had an emotional support dog.

Since they would and could get "high on drugs" and then couldn't or wouldn't control their "emotional support dog" who was large enough to cause injury to another tenants child or cat, I turned them down. Before doing that I contacted their current landlord and past landlord and was told they would drink, smoke pot and let their pet dog roam free.

The applicant, after being turned down make different kids of verbal threats, law suit was mentioned. I told them to go ahead and sue, just because the law allows them to commit "fraud" on an landlords application doesn't mean I have to lie down and play dead. --47.156.xx.xx




Discrimination Question (by Still Learning [NH]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 4:36 PM
Message:

Robert J - ironic the hypothetical question posed actually was your scenario and included medical marijuana smoking but that part was put to rest with the idea that medical can be addressed with drops and edibles --24.61.xxx.xx




Discrimination Question (by Vee [OH]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 5:23 PM
Message:

I am gonna toss a monkey wrench in this, the service or emotional animal would place a hardship on the multi-tenants with dander allergies therefore you would not be forced to allow this animal to visit or live on the property,. --76.188.xxx.xx




Discrimination Question (by AllyM [NJ]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 6:01 PM
Message:

I would fight that in court somehow and protect the allergic tenants. Maybe they could get handicapped status to help you out with that. --73.33.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by Still Learning [NH]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 6:20 PM
Message:

Hardship is an interesting idea. This truly is hypothetical, although a local landlord was almost in this predicament which began the discussion. The issue with hardship for me would be the risk of having to defend against a discrimination lawsuit. One of our last speakers was describing the costs of defending these types of cases and the fines that get imposed. --24.61.xxx.xx




Discrimination Question (by Still Learning [NH]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 6:33 PM
Message:

Found this on a 2010 Dept. of Justice ADA page. Not sure if it is still accurate.

"Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility." --24.61.xxx.xx




Discrimination Question (by RR78 [VA]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 7:02 PM
Message:

I then we can have the one with allergies say it is against their religious beliefs to be around cats or dogs.

All of this could be a mess.

Anyone want to volunteer as a test case? LOL --73.40.xx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by BRAD 20,000 [IN]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 7:09 PM
Message:

This I know - the whole emotional support thing is getting out of control.

If I were in the SERVICE ANIMAL lobby (true seeing eye dogs, etc) I'd be up in arms about the people abusing the system.

BRAD --68.50.xx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by RathdrumGal [ID]) Posted on: Jul 13, 2017 7:59 PM
Message:

I have to chime in here and disagree. Fair Housing acommodations are only required where they do not create a "substantial hardship" on the part of the rental housing provider or other tenants. It would be incumbent on the LL and the allergic renter to prove substantial hardship. I would advise the allergic renter to document her severe allergy and her need for a pet free building upon moving in (doctor's note), and give a copy of this documentation to her LL. I beleive it would come down who documented their disability first.

Great question, and I am cheduled to take a Fair Housing training tomorrow. I will be sure to ask. --98.145.xx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by Still Learning [NH]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 4:15 AM
Message:

RathdrumGal looking forward to your insight after your training. --24.61.xxx.xx




Discrimination Question (by Ken [NY]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 4:23 AM
Message:

Rathdrumgal,give us an idea of what you learned at the training --24.25.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by Barb [MO]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 5:18 AM
Message:

Brad - the SD industry IS "up in arms" about all the fakers.

The issue is that there is not a good way to regulate it in the US right now. The DOD announced regulations last year that started in January, that only SDs trained by members of ADI (Assistance Dogs International) count as SDs on military bases. The problem is the requirements to be a member of ADI. They require the organization to be a non-profit and to be referred by another member of ADI. They exclude small businesses. My dog was trained by a small business. The couple makes their living training SDs. They do a good job, but are excluded from ADI membership. In the US, it only means I can't take him on base as a SD, such as to the PX. British Columbia has said I must appear with him and pass an assessment if we want to visit.

In the US, it means that we get lots of fakes. OTOH, if someone can maintain the standard, they should be able to train their own dog. Canine Companions for Independence doesn't want to create a hardship for those with limited funds.

--64.251.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by David [MI]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 5:48 AM
Message:

The problem is where you advertise/claim your property is animal- or pet-free. THere is a subtle but significant difference between not allowing pets in each unit and claiming the entire property is free of animals/pets.

The former is what LLs do all the time. The latter is much broader and a claim I don't think any run of the mill LL should be making.

It is kind of like those disclaimers in grocery counters and restaurants that say that while your dish does not have a specific allergent as an ingredient, the dish was made in a kitchen that preps that ingredient. --12.156.xxx.xx




Discrimination Question (by David [MI]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 5:51 AM
Message:

When applicants say to me "I have allergies , has there been pets in this unit" I say "yes" or "not to the best of my knowledge , we clean the unit but can't guarantee no pet dander/hair etc, or that previous tenant didn't sneak one in" --12.156.xxx.xx




Discrimination Question (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 11:38 AM
Message:

Kim: Your statement that you'll just make your lease say "no animals" instead of "no pets" and then things are "Done!" doesn't make legal sense.

Adding "no animals" to your lease does not at all change your legal obligation to provide housing for Service Animals and/or Emotional Support Animals. To deny them based on your "no animals" statement in your lease would be a violation of federal anti-discrimination law.

Sorry, but it is not "fixed" that easily.

- John...

--207.241.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by Amy [MO]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 12:38 PM
Message:

"then we can have the one with allergies say it is against their religious beliefs to be around cats or dogs". RR78, I about died!

If your ad says "no animals", then why would someone with an emotional support animal even apply? I get it--just can't discriminate, but it shows how much the potential renter doesn't care about your rules. (Aside from the few who have no other choice in housing) Can I EVEN SAY "no animals" in an ad anymore??

It's going to have to eventually come down to strictly animal free housing or animal friendly housing. I'm sure the govt is going to want to certify those too.

If somebody with allergies moves in first, and another moves in with an animal to which they are allergic, can you let the first tenant out of their lease with a doctor's excuse? Would you?? I did that for a renter once WHO COULD NOT live in the house that previously had dogs. She was in the hospital almost the whole few months she lived there. It can be LIVING nightmare for anyone who has that kind of allergy. They DONT have the luxury of abusing the law to get housing anywhere. They have to trust the LL.

This whole thing gives me a headache. I really do hope that they can come up with a way to weed out the fakers.

--136.32.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by Kim [TX]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 1:29 PM
Message:

John, you are so right. I did some research and found that with few exceptions, the Fair Housing Act does not allow a landlord to forbid service animals, including emotional support animals.

If it comes up in one of my "no pet" units, I will deal with it. Been there, done that with pets. There is no shortage of places around here that allow animals. They are welcome to them. --23.30.xx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by J [FL]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 5:01 PM
Message:

Has anyone here ever had an "ESA" applicant where the ESA was something normal, like a cat, or a poodle?

I've never had one where it was not an aggressive dog breed. --72.188.xxx.xx




Discrimination Question (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 5:08 PM
Message:

J: I certainly have, sure. Had an ex-military guy with a little poodle named Tiny that was an ESA. Great guy, no issues. He stayed around 3 years and then moved to another state.

Also had a young woman with a pitbull as an ESA. Also no issues. She was only there about 6 months though because she moved back home with Mom. Paid the Early Termination Fee. So, co complaints there either! :)

- John...

--75.133.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 5:11 PM
Message:

Amy: Correct, you can't say "no animals" -- at least, not if you mean no Service Animals or ESAs -- which is what it sounds like.

I don't get some of the hate/discrimination that many of you seem to promote. Don't get me wrong -- I hate the fake ESAs as much as you do. But lots of you seem to also want to include Service Animals in that. Telling them that there are "plenty of places" for them. That's just not cool, people. That sort of attitude is what gets us more and more restriction laws on things like this. Because you ARE illegally discriminating against people with legit disabilities when you do that. You seem to be throwing out the baby (real Service Animals) with the bathwater (all those fake ESAs).

I'm sure back in the day, similar landlords said similar things about black, jewish, and other such groups that were discriminated again. "Oh, there is no shortage of places around here that allow them. They are welcome to them!" Sorry, but that's a bunch of crap.

- John...

--75.133.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by J [FL]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 5:33 PM
Message:

@John

OK I'm glad to know there are some real ones out there...

I've only had one person with a service animal (not ESA). I would have taken him if he passed screening but someone else who applied before him passed and was approved first so I never got to his.

I agree about not discriminating. I've found there is no need to anyway. With the "fake ESA pitbull" people, they usually don't have their act together. Bad credit or something else that I would not accept from anyone who applies. No need to even bring the dog into the decision.

Of course if they do pass, pay the fee, etc. you have to take them, as you stated. --72.188.xxx.xx




Discrimination Question (by Barb [MO]) Posted on: Jul 14, 2017 9:13 PM
Message:

I have one tenant with an ESA. It has been a pet for a few years, but after the death of her husband, the DR wrote a ESA letter. Little fat wiener dog.spoiled rotten. She takes him for ice cream regularly.

Meanwhile, a real SD won't be a problem.

Heck, mine traveled to Orlando from STL and back, and sat through Jeffery's Boot Camp last week. He got lots of compliments and wasn't even on his best behavior! --64.251.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by Amy [MO]) Posted on: Jul 15, 2017 8:34 AM
Message:

Everyone-

Despite that after rereading my last post, and coming off sounding like a bit of a jerk- I am a bit too close to the situation of a loved one, who, when exposed to a dog for any length of time can't breathe. It's a life threatening allergy. So pardon me if I get a little ticked off when accommodations are made for people who have nothing better to do than sit around and buy some bogus ESA certificate online to avoid paying a pet fee and pet rent to be able to live in a no pet policy place that now will exclude others with allergies from living there without renovations. The prevalence of allergies IS becoming worse.

I am not talking about service animals or the emotional support animals that are real. I regretfully did not differentiate that in the post.

Realize that soon we will have to accommodate for ALL disabilities, and if we do not fight the fakers, we will have to adjust accommodations on a tenant by tenant basis. It's getting out of control.

Love to all- --136.32.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 15, 2017 9:58 AM
Message:

Sounds good -- I agree! :)

- John...

--75.133.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by Ken [NY]) Posted on: Jul 15, 2017 12:11 PM
Message:

John,I believe the owner of a property should be able to discriminate against any one for any reason,they own the house they make the rules,that being said I could care less about discriminating simply because it would reduce my pool of tenants and that would cost me money and I do this to make money --24.25.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by Barb [MO]) Posted on: Jul 15, 2017 12:20 PM
Message:

Amy,

Your relative should get the Dr to provide a letter stating that he or she has a life threatening allergy to dogs, cats, fur, etc. That IS a disability.

We have a faculty member with one. If he appears at a meeting I'm at, one of us must leave the room. It is not enough to be across the room. Makes life interesting. Who leaves depends on who has what role to play at that event. --67.43.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 15, 2017 6:37 PM
Message:

Ken: That's fine that you "believe" that the owner "should" be able to do that -- but the reality is that they can't. Federal law says that they can't. And that is what we're talking about here.

Also, to note it, I actually fully disagree with you that owners "should" be able to discriminate against protected classes just because they own the place. There was a time in this country when people COULD discriminate against people that were black or hispanic or gay or women or blind. I disagree that was acceptable just because the landlord "owned the place." It was unfair then and would still be unfair now.

You can disagree if you want. I'm just not the person that thinks that is acceptable. Luckily, federal law is on my side these days.

- John...

--75.133.xxx.xxx




Discrimination Question (by Ray-N-Pa [PA]) Posted on: Jul 17, 2017 11:29 AM
Message:

So when I uproot a tenant that has a medical issue with the ESA that is allegedly helping someone else with a medical issue - does this mean I am able to claim that my tenants are driving me crazy so I can collect disability and get my own ADA accommodation from myself --24.239.xx.xxx





Reply:
Subject: RE: Discrimination Question
Your Name:
Your State:

Message:
Discrimination Question
Would you like to be notified via email when somebody replies to this thread?
If so, you must include your valid email address here. Do not add your address more than once per thread/subject. By entering your email address here, you agree to receive notification from Mrlandlord.com every time anyone replies to "this" thread. You will receive response notifications for up to one week following the original post. Your email address will not be visible to readers.
Email Address: