The Tenant Who Wants a Service Dog
A landlord manages a 12-unit building with a no-pets policy stated in every lease. A tenant with a documented anxiety disorder submits a written request for a reasonable accommodation to keep a 60-pound dog. The tenant provides a letter from a licensed therapist but not the therapist's records. The landlord's insurance carrier has a breed exclusion for the dog's breed and says the policy will be canceled if the dog is allowed. Another tenant in the building has a severe dog allergy and has complained. The landlord also has a policy of charging a $300 pet deposit and $40/month pet rent. The tenant has paid rent on time for two years.
1. Must the landlord grant the accommodation? Walk through the analysis.
Read the worked answer
This is a reasonable accommodation request under fair housing law (disability). The landlord must evaluate it, not reflexively deny it.
- Is the tenant disabled? A documented anxiety disorder that substantially limits a major life activity can qualify. The landlord may request reliable supporting information - but may not demand the therapist's full records or diagnosis; a letter confirming the disability and the need for the animal is generally sufficient. Demanding records is overreach.
- Is the request reasonable? A service/assistance animal is not a pet, so the no-pets policy and pet rent/pet deposit generally do not apply. The landlord may not charge pet fees for an assistance animal.
- Undue hardship? The landlord must show a concrete, documented burden. An insurer's breed exclusion can support undue hardship only if no reasonable alternative exists - e.g., the landlord cannot obtain comparable coverage, or the tenant can use a different animal. The landlord should actually shop the market and document the result before denying.
- Third-party harm: The other tenant's allergy is a legitimate concern. The landlord should explore reasonable alternatives - location of the dog, leash/control rules, common-area restrictions, air filtration - rather than denying outright. A severe allergy that cannot be mitigated may support a narrow restriction, but not a blanket denial.
Conclusion: the landlord likely must grant the accommodation, waive pet fees, and address the allergy through reasonable measures. Outright denial based on the no-pets policy alone would be unlawful.
2. What should the landlord do procedurally to protect itself?
Read the worked answer
- Respond in writing within a reasonable time, engaging in an interactive process.
- Request only the information needed: a letter from a licensed health care provider confirming the disability and the need for the animal. Do not demand medical records.
- Document the insurance carrier's position and any market search for alternative coverage.
- Offer reasonable alternatives to the other tenant's allergy (dog restricted from certain areas, kept on leash, no off-leash common areas) and document the other tenant's response.
- If granting, put the accommodation in writing: no pet rent/deposit, but the tenant remains responsible for damage and for controlling the animal.
- Do not retaliate against either tenant for requesting accommodation or complaining.
- If denying (only if undue hardship is genuinely documented), state the specific reason and the alternatives considered, and consult counsel before sending.
A landlord who denies without this process risks an HUD or state fair housing complaint and potential damages.