No Kids, No Vouchers, No Service Dog

Each phrase must be analyzed separately. 'No children' is direct familial-status discrimination under the federal Fair Housing Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The broker must refuse to publish it. 'Quiet Christian building' expresses a religious preference and is also unlawful; it suggests the owner screens for religion. 'No Section 8' discriminates based on status with regard to public assistance under Minnesota law and likely violates St. Paul's local ordinance; the owner's 'paperwork' complaint is not a defense. 'Perfect for young professionals' is not automatically illegal because age is not a protected class in housing the same way, but in this ad it reinforces exclusion of families and should be removed. The broker is responsible for ads she places or approves. Lisa should tell the owner in writing that she cannot run the ad, explain the protected classes, and propose neutral copy: 'Quiet 12-unit building; two-bedroom units available; applications welcome from all qualified applicants.' If the owner insists, Lisa should not publish and should consider terminating the management agreement.

The service dog is likely an assistance animal, not a pet. A tenant with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation from the no-pet policy. The owner generally cannot charge a pet deposit or pet rent for an assistance animal, and breed or size restrictions that would exclude the animal may have to be waived unless the animal poses a direct threat or would cause substantial damage. The owner may require reliable documentation of the disability and the need for the animal if the disability is not obvious, but cannot demand unnecessary medical details. Lisa should process the request interactively, keep the documentation confidential, and respond in writing. If the owner refuses, Lisa should explain the fair-housing risk and document the refusal. She should not enforce the $300 pet deposit or the breed exclusion without legal review. If the animal is actually a pet, the no-pet policy and deposit may apply. The distinction is the disability-related need, not the label the tenant uses.

Lisa should not reject the voucher holder. She should tell the owner that refusing applicants because they use a housing voucher violates Minnesota's public-assistance protection and St. Paul's source-of-income rules, and that she will process all applications under the same written criteria. For the family with two children, she should apply the same occupancy and screening standards used for any applicant; two children in a two-bedroom unit may be permissible depending on occupancy limits, and she cannot use 'no children' or steer them to another building. Lisa should document the owner's instructions, her refusal, and the neutral criteria. If the owner insists on discrimination, Lisa should decline to carry out the instruction and consult an attorney about ending the management agreement; she cannot participate in a discriminatory denial. She should also train leasing staff, keep applications and criteria consistent, and retain records. A prospect who is denied may file a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights or HUD, and the broker can be liable even if the owner made the decision.