The Ad, the Assistance Dog, and the Occupancy Rule

Four separate violations:

1. "NO CHILDREN" / "QUIET ADULT BUILDING" - familial status discrimination. A blanket adults-only policy in general housing is unlawful; only qualifying housing for older persons is exempt, and a 40-unit building with no such designation does not qualify.
2. "NO VOUCHERS" - Maryland prohibits discrimination based on source of income, and that expressly covers housing choice vouchers and similar subsidies. Refusing voucher holders is a state-law violation even where the rent would be affordable.
3. "ENGLISH SPEAKING ONLY" - national origin discrimination on its face. There is no language requirement in leasing; a policy that excludes people by national origin is unlawful regardless of intent.
4. "NO PETS" - permissible as to pets, but dangerous as written because it will be read to exclude assistance animals, which are not pets and must be handled through the reasonable accommodation process.

Lawful rewrite of substance: "One-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments available. Occupancy limits apply. Assistance animals welcome with reasonable accommodation. Housing vouchers accepted. Equal Housing Opportunity." Then make sure the actual practices match - a compliant ad over a discriminatory screening process is worse than the ad alone.

The dog is an assistance animal, not a pet, so the pet rules do not apply; the question is whether the landlord must grant a reasonable accommodation for a disability.

The three conditions:

• $300 pet deposit - NO. A deposit, fee, or surcharge cannot be imposed for an assistance animal. The tenant may still be liable for actual damage the animal causes, but not a deposit as a condition of approval.
• Registry certificate from a specific provider - NO. The landlord may not demand a particular third-party "certification" or registration. Where the disability is not obvious, the landlord may request reliable documentation from a health care or other licensed professional confirming that the person has a disability and that the animal provides support or assistance. The tenant here has documentation of a disability-related need, so further demands are harassment.
• 25-pound limit - generally NO. Breed, size, and weight restrictions are pet rules. An assistance animal may be excluded only if it poses a direct threat to health or safety that cannot be mitigated, or would cause substantial physical damage to the property - an individualized, evidence-based determination, not a number.

Process: respond promptly, in writing, grant the accommodation (possibly with reasonable conditions such as the animal being under the handler's control in common areas and the tenant cleaning up after it), and document the file. Denial without an interactive process is itself the violation.

Not on the stated reasoning. "Four people can't live in a one-bedroom" is an unwritten, ad hoc rule, and applying it to a family while allowing three adult roommates in the same unit is familial status discrimination.

Proper approach:

1. Adopt a written occupancy standard applied uniformly to all applicants regardless of familial status - the widely used benchmark is two persons per bedroom, adjusted for the size and configuration of the unit (a one-bedroom with a den or 900 square feet may reasonably support more).
2. Apply the standard before seeing who the applicants are, and document the basis: square footage, bedroom count, septic/sewer capacity, and any local code or health department limits.
3. If the standard is exceeded, the denial must rest on the standard and be explained in writing; consider whether a reasonable accommodation is required (e.g., a documented disability-related need for a live-in aide adds an occupant who is not counted the same way).

Here, four people in a one-bedroom exceeds a two-per-bedroom rule, so a denial may be defensible - but only under a written, uniformly applied policy, not because the applicant is a family. Best practice is to offer an available two-bedroom and memorialize the reason.