Feds Sue Another Landlord for Discriminating Against an Emotional Support Animal
Federal housing officials allege a New Hampshire landlord violated the Fair Housing Act for refusing to show a unit to two women with emotional support dogs.

Federal housing officials are once again accusing a landlord of illegal housing discrimination for not renting to someone with an emotional support animal.
According to a complaint filed yesterday by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), landlord Jack Cohen, who owns 40 rental units in Manchester, New Hampshire, declined to show an available apartment to two prospective tenants when they failed to produce documentation verifying a medical need for their emotional support dogs.
The prospective tenants, a mother and daughter (whose names are redacted in the complaint), had both received a recommendation from doctors for an emotional support animal to cope with their diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder.
After Cohen declined to show them the unit, the two unnamed complainants filed a complaint with HUD in August 2023, alleging that he'd discriminated against them on the basis of their disability.
In the charging documents filed yesterday, HUD agreed. The department alleges that Cohen violated the Fair Housing Act—which bars discrimination on the basis of disability—by refusing to show them the unit or let them apply and by requiring documentation that he doesn't require of other prospective tenants.
This is not the first time that HUD has accused property owners of disability discrimination for not allowing emotional support animals on their properties.
In September 2023, HUD sued two New York landlords for refusing to make an exception to their "no pets" policy after a tenant asked for an accommodation for their emotional support cat.
The tenant got the cat anyway before moving out a year later. The landlords settled the HUD complaint by agreeing to pay their former tenant $2,500 for the emotional distress they'd caused her and take a fair housing education class.
Similarly, in 2021, another New Hampshire landlord had to pay out $35,000 to a tenant for not carving out an exemption to their own "no pets" policy for their emotional support animal.
In 2019, a Colorado housing authority was forced to pay $1 million after losing a discrimination lawsuit that challenged its policy of charging a pet fee to people looking to keep emotional support animals.
People can read through the charging documents in these cases and decide for themselves if they think the landlords in question are being jerks or not.
As I've argued before, it's perfectly reasonable for landlords to have and enforce "no pet" policies or charge fees to pet owners. Pets can damage rental units. They also impose costs on other renters by being dirty, noisy, and even dangerous.
The fact that a pet is a doctor-recommended "emotional support animal" doesn't change any of that for the landlord or tenants who'd prefer to live in a pet-free environment.
Calling a pet an emotional support animal does change things legally, however. Pet owners have ably used a combination of doctors' notes and federal disability law to smuggle their pets aboard planes and into businesses that would rather not have them there.
Now, with the aid of HUD and fair housing law, pet owners are figuring out how to do the same when shopping for housing.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Department of Communist Housing and Urban Development aka CHUD
This is just ridiculous. Isn't "emotional support animal" just another way of saying "pet" for mental illness fetishists?
I bet most childless cat ladies can't cope without their fur-babies.
Correct
Oh no... They're very different. A pet is just a pet. An "emotional support animal" is a pet wearing a vest that the owner bought in Amazon.
I don’t care what you call it, I don’t want animals in my building.
Or in my restaurant, food store, airplane, doctor's office, Home Depot, or school.
How dare you discriminate against my emotional support rhinoceros!
One of the many side-effects of the Civil Rights act of 1964.
The *special* people are entitled to everything.
And we've come down to arguing who is truly special and who not.
when they failed to produce documentation verifying a medical need for their emotional support dogs.
I’m not seeing any “violation”.
Always believe the victim.
Do we always believe that they are a victim, or believe what they claim as a victim?
They are playing a game of HUD and seek with the facts.
What's the line too far?
Can I have a peacock? A horse?
What if I have an emotional support AR-15?
I do find ripping up some paper with a lightweight rifle therapeutic.
What about my emotional support weapon of mass destruction?
An acquaintance in Baltimore managed to game the system to keep his emotional support pig. Even with all the violence in Charm City, the swine is probably safer there than in Springfield, OH.
this is probably the only site online you can read a version of this story that is sympathetic to landlords. this is such a fucking garbage publication
Who's house is it anyways?
If you don't like the terms GO BUY YOUR OWN.
Takers are outraged property owners decide how property is used.
I'm a landlord. Here are the building's rules and a dildo. If you don't like the no pet clause you can heartily fuck yourself then look for a different building.
You are a really caring landlord. Most wouldn't even consider supplying the dildo.
Spoken like a leftist who owns no property, never had to make payroll, and thinks gov't is benevolent.
Do you feel better now? BTW, how did you sneak onto your mom's phone?
This coming from some useful idiot leftist who is stupid enough to believe all the lies he was force fed in school about the pie-in-the-sky bullshit artist, Karl Marx.
Hey, Comrade.
How about buy some property and then let all the dregs of the earth occupy it for a few months.
Then come back to us about "sympathy for landlords."
In the meantime, STFU.
Pay off your loans. Pay your bills. It's not fucking hard.
You sound racist!
Are you sure it wasn't a federal housing official in New Hampshire landlord that violated the Fair Housing Act for refusing to show a dog with two with emotional support women?
If I can't ban emotional support pets, and I can't request documentation that a pet is a bona fide emotional support pet, then it's not really legal to ban pets, is it?
How can I enforce a pet ban?
One word: Haitians.
Then we just need to find a fabulous type of territorial gorilla that will chase off the Haitians and then freeze to death in the winter.
Does this apply to Jeffs emotional support sarc?
Only if sarc dresses in a furries costume.
You think he doesn't?
I hope he isn't one of those foxkin or whatever they call themselves. The foxes are disgusting. The bunnies and other vegetarian furries are much better to have around.
He would dress up as Snarf from the Thundercats:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO3ZbQiGNkk
Snarfcasmic
Nice pull.
If you can't force the quartering of soldiers in peacetime, then me thinks you can't force the quartering of dogs, ever.
Probably should have read first. Guessing the landlords took HUD money, therefore have to abide HUD contract. Give the devil a ride, he's gonna wanta drive.
But this also smacks of HUD probably changing definitions by bureaucratic dictates, so fuck them.
We are assigning you this emotional support soldier. Enjoy.
You can get jobbed by the FHA anti-discrimination provisions without taking subsidies or vouchers.
'The prospective tenants, a mother and daughter (whose names are redacted in the complaint), had both received a recommendation from doctors for an emotional support animal to cope with their diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder.'
You know who else got a doctor's note for bogus mental conditions?
Act for refusing to show a unit to two women with emotional support dogs.
Just make a no-lesbians policy.
"by refusing to show them the unit or let them apply and by requiring documentation that he doesn't require of other prospective tenants."
I can't imagine why he would request documentation from potential tenants about NOT having an emotional support animal, so that's a weird point to make.
"Fair Housing Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of disability"
This is unconstitutional on the face of it, and the charge is also false. In any actual constitutional republic, the Supreme Court would have struck this provision of the law down. The landlord is not discriminating against prospective tenants based upon their disability. He is discriminating against all pet owners, with or without a disability. In any sane world, the landlord would not be required to respect the opinion of a medical provider in the first place. Of course, this is no longer a constitutional republic or any kind of sane world.
. The landlord is not discriminating against prospective tenants based upon their disability.
While this seems true on its face, I wonder if the landlord does and can discriminate against all pet owners. For instance, can a landlord not allow a blind person with a real, no-shit service animal? A real service animal. A service animal that's been trained by real service dog trainers. Not a fucking 'emotional support Chihuahua'. I honestly don't know.
What if the landlord live onsite and is allergic to dogs?
Excellent point. Competing virtues. I honestly don't know.
I'd say
NOT catering to the disability =/= discrimination against the disabled.
FYI, I found the two women who were discriminated against. For those who don't click through, they do use she/her pronouns.
This is the problem with how we've perverted the definition of "mental health" in this country. It's now become a catchall for any and all lifestyle choices.
The stone cold cruel hard fact of the matter is this: if you cannot get through your day without an "emotional support animal" - regardless of the reason why (PTSD or whatever) - then what you need is some time in a mental facility to get right.
I guarantee you that if a doctor recommended 30-days of in-house therapy at a nearby sanitarium, where a doctor could be available to talk, offer counsel, maybe prescribe meds if needed, to help get them through whatever they're struggling with; the patient would be like, "Y'know, it's actually not so bad. Actually, I feel a lot better now. I'll pass doc, thanks."
This "emotional support animal" nonsense is a cheap replacement for real mental health treatment. Or, worse, it's an exploit by despicable grifters trying to game the system.
If you've got problems - real problems - then seek real help. Just because your pet makes you feel better, doesn't mean it's mental health treatment.