Emotional Support Animals in Housing: Insights from the NJ Supreme Court
Apr 19, 2024 | Written by: | Share
The New Jersey Supreme Court's recent decision in the case of Players Place II Condominium Association v. K.P provides a clear framework for evaluating requests for emotional support animals under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The court held that individuals seeking accommodations must demonstrate that they have a disability under the LAD, and that the requested accommodation may be necessary to afford them an “equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.”
This places the burden on housing providers to prove that the requested accommodation is unreasonable. The Court emphasized that emotional support animals serve a distinct purpose and are not subject to general pet policies. Such animals can provide valuable assistance to individuals with mental health issues and disabilities, facilitating these individuals’ ability to function in daily life.
The Court stressed the importance of a good-faith, interactive dialogue between parties during the accommodation process. If parties cannot resolve the request, courts may be tasked with balancing the need for the accommodation against its costs and administrative burdens.
In this recent case, the condominium association had a policy that only allowed dogs that weigh less than 30 pounds. A resident couple requested to keep a 70-pound emotional support dog in their unit. The trial court initially allowed the residents to keep the dog based on equitable principles but dismissed their counterclaim, questioning the wife's disability status. The Appellate Division upheld the trial court's decision but noted an error in interpreting the disability statute.
The Court clarified that the wife was indeed disabled under the LAD and emphasized the need for a fact-specific assessment of the accommodation request. The court reversed the dismissal of the residents' discrimination claim, emphasizing that a housing provider cannot simply deny an accommodation request based on a pet policy without proper evaluation.
Ultimately, the court's decision provides guidance for future cases involving requests for emotional support animals in housing accommodations, underscoring the importance of adhering to the framework outlined in the opinion.
Should you have questions about this recent decision as it applies to your situation, please contact me for a consultation at 908-735-5161.
Sharon M. Flynn, Esq. is a partner with Gebhardt & Kiefer, P.C., and practices primarily in the areas of general litigation, employment law, and insurance defense.
If you have a suggestion for a future blog topic, please feel free to submit it via the Contact Us form.
Any statements made herein are solely for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.