An apartment building had a No-Pet policy. But the landlord made an accommodation "required" under Fair Housing rules for tenants with the emotional-support dog.

A tenant that lives next to that ESA dog's apartment and uses the same entryway had allergies to pet dander.

As the landlord tried to balance the needs of the tenant who wanted an ESA dog and the other tenant with server pet allergies. The owner thought the allergies was occasional and allowed the dog.

But the tenant with allergies would get overwhelmed and the dog danger would restrict the breathing pathways and cause major medical issues. The allergic tenant was more allergic to cats and had to carry epinephrine auto-inject device because her sinuses would swell and congestion -- possible death..

The owner was aware of both tenants needs. The ruling went through two courts. First the ESA dog won, but on appeal the women with serious allergies did not have to put up with daily medical problems caused by the dog or pets. AFTER ALL, this was a NO-PETS BUILDING.

What could possibly happen ?

Todays Trivia :

Who was the first Caveman

who thought it was a good idea,

to bring Animals into their Cave ?

Um, how about a link to these court rulings, Robert? I'd really love to read them.

Note that almost this exact example has been mentioned before officially. Their answer to this hypothetical question was that, if it was an apartment building, then a "reasonable accomodation" would be to re-arrange tenants so that the person with the ESA and the person that was allergic to dogs were further apart.

So, I'd love to read the court case saying what you've suggest happened... Have some links for us? Especially since it was a case and then an appeal that swapped the outcome. Seems like that'd be important news in the landlording world when it comes to ESAs. So, please provide us with the cases so that we can check them out. Thanks.

- John...

Thank you for sharing that Robert J.

Robert J accidentally posted in the wrong post. Here is the link to the info he provided:

Glad to be able to read the information in detail. I think this is the most important point:

"Landlords must keep in mind that, in this case, Cohen’s allergy to pet dander was a severe, medically documented allergy, constituting a disability. In other words, both tenants had disabilities."

Usually, when I see this come up, I'll see someone mention "my tenant has allergies" and that's it. That is CLEARLY not enough to deny an ESA for.

In this situation, the allergic tenant had an allergy so severe that it was considered a disability. That was the key here. And that is very, very rare.

- John...