Assistance animals The HUD, the enforcement arm of the FHA, defines an assistance animal as an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or that provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified effects of a person’s disability. An assistance animal is not a pet. Individuals with a disability may request to keep an assistance animal as a reasonable accommodation to a housing provider’s pet restrictions. Housing providers cannot refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. HUD requires a housing provider to allow a reasonable accommodation involving an assistance animal in situations that meet all the following conditions: ● A request was made to the housing provider by or for a person with a disability. ● The request was supported by reliable disability-related information, if the disability and the disability-related need Emotional support animals An emotional support animal (ESA) is an assistance animal that, as defined by HUD, provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified effects of a person’s disability. It is commonly interpreted as alleviating or mitigating symptoms of an illness or disability from which an individual with a mental or psychiatric disability suffers. HUD provides that any animal may serve as an ESA. To be afforded protection under federal law, a person must meet the ADA definition of disability and must have written documentation from a physician or other medical professional stating that the person has a disability, and the ESA provides a therapeutic benefit. The FFHA makes it illegal to discriminate against any individual who has such documentation. The Florida also has a Fair Housing Act: ● It does not require a handicapped person to document the need for an ESA to their housing provider.
for the animal were not apparent and the housing provider requested such information. ● The housing provider has not demonstrated that: ○ By granting the request it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the housing provider. ○ The request would fundamentally alter the essential nature of the housing provider’s operations. ○ The specific assistance animal in question would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others despite any other reasonable accommodations that could eliminate or reduce the threat. ○ The request would not result in significant physical damage to the property of others despite any other reasonable accommodation that could eliminate or reduce the physical damage. A reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal may include, for example: ● A request to live with an assistance animal at a property where a housing provider has a no-pets policy. ● A request to waive a pet deposit, fee, or other rule as to an assistance animal. ● An animal does not need specific training to become an ESA. Persons with multiple disabilities are entitled to have one ESA for each disability. ● An ESA may not become a nuisance to neighbors or the association. If, after proper warning and sufficient time for remediation has passed, the resident may lose the right to have the ESA in their unit or on the common elements. ● Both service animals and ESAs are considered reasonable accommodations that must be made (and documentation provided for an ESA), by housing providers for handicapped residents. At this point, the attorney for the AACA announces that the screening seminar is complete. As most CAMs know, obstacles and misunderstandings generally do not end with a seminar. Boards, committees, association members and even management face almost daily issues that they are not equipped to handle and usually don’t have the expertise or legal knowledge to guide them through every obstacle.
MORE PRESSING ISSUES FOR THE AACA SCREENING COMMITTEE
Sober houses A week after the seminar, a notice is received from an owner that they sold their home to a corporation that operates sober houses. The president of the board schedules an immediate closed door joint board and screening committee meeting with the association attorney to discuss their legal alternatives. At the meeting, the attorney is asked for an opinion, and responds with the following: “A sober house is a group home for persons in recovery from drug and/or alcohol abuse. It is intended to function as the last step in a continuum of care before residents are released into society. The FHAA makes it unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling because of a handicap. The ADA includes those suffering from drug and alcohol addiction, who meet the activities of daily living standards, as persons with mental health disabilities. Community associations are required, by law, to make reasonable accommodations to allow persons with a physical or mental impairment, such as drug or alcohol addiction, to reside
in their community. Such accommodations include waiving enforcement of policies in their documents, such as restrictions on unrelated persons living in a household or operating a business from a residence. Attempts by municipalities to prevent the establishment of sober houses in their jurisdiction by citing their restrictive zoning ordinances have failed in court. In summary, the association has no legal basis to reject the application. The details of the sale, like any other transfer, are confidential and cannot be shared with the members and residents. Additionally, the owners of the sober house are responsible to comply with the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) of the association.” The association president immediately declares that the association could invoke its right of first refusal and purchase the unit. The attorney responds, “That’s possible, but if either the seller or applicant took the association to court, the association would be at high risk of losing. A court could very well determine that the association invoked its right of first refusal in an illegally discriminatory attempt to prevent handicapped persons from residing in its community.”
Page 69
Book Code: CAMFL1524
EliteLearning.com/CAM/Florida
Powered by FlippingBook