>> MICHELLE UZETA:  Hello, everyone, my name is Michelle Uzeta and I am deputy legal director at Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.
Unfortunately my co‑presenter Dianne Prado from HEART LA is unable to join us today, she had to travel out of town unexpectedly.
For the purpose of this webinar, the chat will be open to everyone, as will the Q&A.
I ask that if you have questions, please put them in the Q&A and we will try to get to them at the end of the webinar.
If you just have basic information or experiences that you want to share with me and with other people on the webinar, go ahead and put that in the chat.
I do want to encourage people to have an open discussion.
I'm bad at multitasking, so I may not be able to monitor the chat at the same time that I'm presenting, which is why I'm asking you to put Q&A in the Q&A box.
But, you know, feel free to talk amongst yourselves while the presentation is ongoing.
Next slide.
Before I go into the agenda, for those who may not know, DREDF is a national law and policy center, focusing on the rights of people with disabilities, and where disabilities intersect with other marginalized identities.
We are also a support center for qualified legal services producers in California.  So we are here to answer your questions on an ongoing basis when disability issues come up in the work that you are doing.
So, for today's presentation, I am going to provide a brief overview of fair housing laws that protect the right of people with disabilities to reside with assistance animals.
Some of this may be old news to you.  You may have already attended trainings on this issue.  You may be already familiar.
But I just wanted to make sure that everybody that's here has a common base for proceeding to the next section of the agenda, which will be to talk about some current challenges when working with people who use assistance animals, and specifically pet screening, the use of pet addendums.
And AB 468.
Next slide.
Go back.  Okay.  So both the Federal Fair Housing Act and California's Employment Fair Housing Act make it unlawful for housing providers to refuse to make accommodations for people with disabilities when such accommodations are needed to have equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
A very common request that housing providers receive is for the reasonable accommodation, to waive a housing provider's no pet policy, so that a person who uses an assistance animal can reside with their assistance animal.
Next slide.
I think it skipped a slide.
The term assistance animal is similar under the Fair Housing Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act and assistance animal is one that works and provides assistance and performs tasks for person with a disability and an animal that provides emotional support for a person with a disability.
In some other legal context, these terms may be divided up into service animal and emotional support animal.  But under fair housing law, they're just all kind of lumped together under the general term of assistance animal.
And it's important to note, as I do on the bottom of the slide, assistance animals are not legally considered pets.
Next slide.
In order for an animal to qualify as an assistance animal, special training is not required.  But there does have to be some kind of a nexus or connection between the individual's disability and the assistance that the animal provides.
So, an animal that picks up items for somebody who's unable to bend, or an animal that goes in and turns on lights in a room that's dark for somebody with post‑traumatic stress disorder to avoid having any kind of flashbacks or things like that, that's the type of thing we're talking about.
There has to be a connection between what the animal does and the person's disability‑related needs.
There's no legal requirement that an animal be registered or certified as an emotional support or service animal/assistance animal.  Those types of things are not required.
And businesses, especially online businesses that claim to register or certify assistance animals are charging people for a service that's unnecessary to establish the need of a reasonable accommodation.
Those types of certifications don't really have any legal standing or merits if you're doing advocacy on behalf of a client.
Next slide.
When assessing whether somebody should have the ‑‑ a reasonable accommodation of an assistance animal, there are certain questions that housing providers can ask and information that they can't ask for.
If you're talking about a service animal, which is, again, an animal that's trained to perform some sort of work or tasks related to somebody's disability, you can ask, "Are you an individual with a disability?  And what is the disability‑related task your animal has been trained to perform?"
Housing providers cannot ask individuals for their specific diagnosis.  And they also cannot ask for someone to have their dog demonstrate or the animal demonstrate the task or work that they're able to perform.
And reliable disability‑related information can be requested if the person's disability is not obvious.
So, if a person has post‑traumatic stress disorder that's not obvious to a housing provider, they can ask for disability‑related information to show that the person has a disability.
Again, not entitled to the specific diagnosis, but they are entitled to at least confirmation that the person has a disability and a need for a service animal.
When you're dealing with requests for support animals, similar questions can be asked and housing providers are looking, again, at whether or not the tenant has a disability, whether the support animal requested is necessary and reasonable, whether there's a connection between the disability and that request.
And a special note here that vests, identification cards, and certificates ‑‑ and again, we're talking about these businesses that kind of market these things online ‑‑ are not in and of themselves documentation that shows either a disability or a need for reasonable accommodation.
Those are more questionable things at this point in time.
Next slide.
Housing providers cannot require tenants to pay pet fees, additional rent, or any other kind of fee, including additional security deposits or to pay for liability insurance.
Those types of things are not allowed under fair housing law.
And again, this is because assistance animals are not considered pets.
A housing provider can, however, charge a tenant for damage that an assistance animal causes, above normal wear and tear.
If it's the provider's usual practice to bill tenants for that type of thing.
Next slide.
Pet rules or restrictions that a housing provider may have will not apply to service and support animals or assistance animals.
Again, because they are not considered pets.
Housing providers may not limit the breed or size of a dog used as an assistance animal.
And housing providers, they can limit access based on specific issues with a specific animal's conduct, meaning the animal at issue is causing a direct threat or fundamentally altering the provider's services.
But that doesn't ‑‑ that really doesn't come up too often.  But that does have to be an individualized assessment of the specific animal in question.  And we'll get to a little discussion about direct threat later in the presentation.
Next slide.
Sometimes people will call wanting to have more than one assistance animal.  There's no rule that you're limited to one assistance animal.  So somebody, in theory, could have more than one.
However, each animal must be individually determined to meet the requirements for an assistance animal.
So, for example, somebody may have a mental health disability that requires a support animal, something like depression, and they may also have co‑existing physical disabilities that require an assistance animal to help them with picking up items or helping them get up from a sitting position to a standing position.
Thank you, Santos, for raising your hand.  If you could put questions in the Q&A box.  I'm not going to be able to answer questions during the presentation, but I can get to your question after.
When you have more than one service animal, the cumulative impact of having multiple animals may be considered by a housing provider if they're assessing whether there's an undue burden on their housing.
Next slide.
I think it may have skipped a slide.
Oh, okay, go ahead; sorry.
One important thing to note is that when housing providers are considering a request for an assistance animal, it is encouraged under federal law and required under state law that the housing provider engage in an interactive process.
This slide here deals with the Federal Fair Housing Act.  Before denying a reasonable accommodation request due to lack of information that confirms an individual's disability, or their disability‑related need for an assistance animal, the housing provider is encouraged to engage in a good faith dialogue.
A couple of cases to note here:  Howard versus HMK Holdings is a Ninth Circuit case that established there is no stand‑alone liability failure for a housing provider to engage in a process; however, that case does not hold that the interactive process is not encouraged or something to be considered.
Rodriguez v Morgan is a case out of the Central California and that process is a factor that can be considered when you're evaluating whether or not a housing provider has failed to reasonably accommodate someone.
So it's still someone you push for.
And the joint statement on reasonable accommodations from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice uses language like "should" in determining the interactive process.
So it's something that those administrative governmental agencies view as also important for a housing provider.
Next slide.
Under California law, the interactive process is required, and it's always been required.  However, amendments to the regulations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act that went into effect 2020 clarify and make very clear that it's required.
Under FEHA, housing providers just engage with a request or their representative.  The purpose is to exchange information to identify, evaluate, and implement accommodations or modifications.
The ‑‑ during the interactive process, a housing provider may not insist on specific types of medical.  A medical exam cannot be required.
And if the housing provider believes that a requester's request for accommodation cannot be granted, they must be engaged in an interactive process in the alternative if that's feasible and then provide that.
And the citation for that regulation is on the slide.
Next slide.
There are some certain situations when an assistance dog can be excluded.  These are, you know, when the animal would impose an undue financial or administrative burden.  Never seen that come up.
Or would fundamentally alter the nature of the housing programs or services.  And honestly, in 30 years, I've never seen that come up either.
You can also exclude an assistance animal if the specific animal in question poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others that can't be reduced or eliminated by the provision of another accommodation.
Or if the specific animal would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by the provision of another accommodation.
Next slide.
So these are just definitions of what the terms undue financial or administrative burden and fundamental alteration mean.
When you're looking at undue financial or administrative burden, you're really looking at the cost of providing the accommodation requested, the benefit that's conveyed to the tenant, the financial resources of the provider, and the availability of equally‑effective, less expensive alternatives.
Again, I've never seen an undue financial or administrative burden come up in an assistance animal case; it just isn't something that I have a he seen.  Others may have.  I would encourage people to put it in the chat if they have.
Same with fundamental alteration, that usually doesn't come up when you're dealing with assistance dog cases.  What the fundamental alteration means is it's going to alter the essential nature of the housing provider's alterations.
Next slide.
So when you're talking about direct threat, how that's defined is a significant risk of bodily harm or a risk of substantial physical damage to the property of others.
And that those kinds of harms or risks can't be sufficiently mitigated or eliminated by a reasonable accommodation.
Next slide.
When assessing direct threat, there's a number of factors that you're considering.  The first is the nature, duration, and severity of the risk.  The second is the likelihood that the threat will actually occur ‑‑ sorry; and then the third is whether there are reasonable accommodations that will sufficiently mitigate or eliminate the direct threat.
Next.
I think as I already mentioned, an individualized assessment is required of the particular animal in question.
And the assessment must also rely on objective evidence about the specific animal.
You can't just rely on stereotypes about certain breeds, certain size animals, or just animals in general.
It really has to be an individualized assessment that looks at the specific animal in question.  It has to be based on real evidence, not just subjective fears or speculations.
Next slide.
And finally, assistance animals, you know, where are they allowed?  They're allowed in all areas of housing, common areas and units, unless, again, there's a reason, a valid, legal reason for exclusion, like the undue burden or fundamental alteration of the provider's services.
So, they're allowed pretty much everywhere.
Next slide.
All right.  So moving onto current challenges.
Next slide.
The first thing I wanted to discuss was pet screening.  If you're unfamiliar with that term, pet screening is essentially a background check on a tenant's pet dog, cat, or other animal, and it is a way for landlords to gather information about a prospective tenant's pet prior to approval their rental application or prior to an existing tenant moving in a new pet.
Next slide.
The types of information that are often sought through pet screening include the pet's breed, size, weight, gender, and age; how long the tenant has owned the pet; whether the pet is housebroken; the amount of time the pet will be home alone everyday; the pet's medical history, including vaccinations, health issues.
The name of the pet's veterinarian; a history of any behavioral problems, such as noise complaints, aggression, or biting; and even references from other landlords specific to the pet.
Next slide.
Many landlords will do pet screening themselves, by asking tenants questions during the application process or by having tenants fill out a pet application.
But it's also now common and growing ‑‑ and growing that landlords will use a third‑party screening company to do the screening for them.
And I know on some of the LISTSERVs, people have been discussing petscreening.com.  That's one example of a pet screening company that a number of housing providers, especially large housing providers, are using to screen pets.
And those type of third‑party companies have websites.  Tenants are instructed to create an online profile with that company, fill out a bunch of forms, answer a number of questions, and then have to wait to see if their pet is approved.
Next slide.
So then begs the question:  Can a landlord require pet screening for assistance animals?
And the answer I would provide is no.
Landlords cannot require pet screening for assistance animals.  Assistance animals are not pets.  And people with disabilities who use assistance animals can live with those animals as a reasonable accommodation.
Because assistance animals are not pets, they aren't subject to the same rules and requirements as pets, including something like pet screening.
And it's our position at DREDF, and I know a number of you all also feel this way, that pet screening for assistance animals violates fair housing law.
Next slide.
So I want to ‑‑ I have a couple of slides here to talk about some of the issues that we're seeing with pet screening and why we feel like pet screening companies violate fair housing law.
The first is that fair housing law is very clear; that reasonable accommodations cannot be conditioned on the execution of additional documents.
So, if a tenant is being asked to go online, create an account, fill out a bunch of forms, jump through a bunch of hoops, provide a bunch of information, that violates these aspects of fair housing law.
Fair housing law is also very clear that requests for reasonable accommodations need not be made in a particular manner.
So, forcing somebody to create an online profile and fill out forms to request an accommodation would violate those types of provisions as well.
People with disabilities should be able to request verbally that they be accommodated in such a way.
Next slide.
Additionally, some pet screening companies, and this is certainly true at petscreening.com, require that tenants agree to conditions and terms, like a waiver of liability and mandatory arbitration.
Those terms are required in order for you to fill out the forms that they have.  So in order to go through and complete the pet screening process, you have ‑‑ you're given no choice, you have to agree to the waiver of liability and mandatory arbitration.
And under fair housing law, a housing provider cannot condition approval of an accommodation on an agreement to special terms or conditions.
So asking people to waive liability or participate and agree to mandatory arbitration would violate these provisions of law.
Next page.
Lastly, pet screening companies often ask tenants for information that's not necessary to process a request for an assistance animal.
I've seen that they've asked for tenant's specific diagnoses, they've asked for specific medical records.  Oftentimes they ask for the animal's breed or size, which is something that is supposed to be irrelevant when you're talking about a reasonable accommodation.
They ask for photos, vaccination records, and microchip information.  Those are things that are not required in order for you to request an accommodation and be granted an accommodation for an assistance animal.
None of the information is required.  And in fact, some of the information is unlawful or, at a minimum, inconsistent with HUD and DOJ guidance on assistance animals and how to process requests for assistance animals.
Next page.
So, what can someone do if they're asked to complete pet screening as a condition of ‑‑ or as part of having their accommodation request processed?
We would suggest explaining to the landlord that the animal is an assistance animal and can't be subject to pet screening.
I've had a number of clients for whom that has worked.
Share resources with the landlord.  You know, educate them about why this kind of practice violates fair housing law.
And then if the housing provider is unwilling to waive that pet screening process or consider the accommodation in some other way, you have the opportunity to file a complaint with the Civil Rights Department, you could also file a complaint with HUD.  You could call advocates, some of whom are on this call to help with navigating that process.
Next slide.
Moving on from pet screening to pet addendums.  California law permits housing providers to establish terms in a lease or rental agreement that reasonably regulate the presence of guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs on the premises of a housing provider.
And that's found at California Civil Code 54.1(b)(6)(B).
I'll note that this is part of a law called the Disabled Persons Act, it is not a provision found in the Fair Employment and Housing Act and I'm just flagging that.
This is under the Fair Housing Act because that prohibits accommodations being conditioned on execution of specific documents and/or an agreement to additional terms and conditions.
But I have not yet seen this be challenged.  I have asked folks at CRD for their opinion on this provision of state law and not received a response.
But it would be my take that this is not something that ‑‑ putting terms in a lease or rental agreement or asking for an addendum is something that's not permitted; it violates federal fair housing law.
Next slide.
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act regulations, they talk about reasonable conditions and how reasonable conditions may be imposed on the use of an assistance animal.
I'll note that the FEHA regulations don't say anything about putting those reasonable conditions in a lease, like the Disabled Person's Act provision does; it just kind of puts out there that the landlord can impose reasonable conditions.
And some examples include restrictions on waste disposal and nuisance behavior.  And those are just common sense kind of conditions that apply to owners of assistance animals.
Any conditions that are imposed cannot interfere with the normal performance of the assistance animal's duties.  So, for example, a leash requirement may sometimes interfere with the ability of a dog to assist an individual, in which case it's okay for the animal to be under voice control or otherwise under the handler's control.
As another example, a no noise requirement, that's a strict no noise requirement, may interfere with a dog whose job it is to bark to alert somebody who is blind to a danger or when somebody is at the door.
I mean, you would compare and contrast that with a dog that's barking all day or all night.  When the barking is not related to its duties, that kind of behavior may violate nuisance requirements.
Next slide.
Handlers of assistance animals do have certain responsibilities, like feeding, maintaining, providing veterinary care, and controlling their assistance animal.
The individual can do this on their own or with the assistance of family, friends, personal care attendants, volunteers.  And these are responsibilities that exist regardless of lease terms.
Next slide.
Some of the problems that we see with pet addendums, oftentimes they subject assistance dog users to terms and conditions that are applied to tenants with pets.  This may be things like pet deposits, things of that nature.
And those are really terms that should not apply to an individual who uses an assistance dog, because, again, assistance dog should be viewed as like a piece of equipment, like a wheelchair or a walker.  They're there to assist the person with a disability.
It's not the same as a common pet.
Pet addendums often also contain unreasonable or unwarranted terms, so you want to be really careful when you're advising a client to look at what a housing provider is asking them to sign.
The addendums may also waive some rights, including due process or notice rights.
Next slide.
I have a couple of examples.  This may be hard to see; it's hard for me to see.  Let me make my screen bigger.
So here's an example.  This is the service animal agreement, it's like a template that's used by the Apartment Association of America, and it has ‑‑ it has some terms ‑‑ sorry ‑‑ it has some terms that are not great and that I would argue violate fair housing law.
Things like number two, which I highlighted here, that the assistance animal must be properly licensed and have shots and vaccinations.
Although assistance animals are subject to local government regulations, like if you have to have a license for any animal, that is going to apply to your assistance animal.
If there's requirements around vaccinations, then that's something that an assistance animal owner has to comply with.
However, to make it part of a person's lease agreement and make your ability to maintain your housing contingent on these things is not ‑‑ is not right.
Housing providers are not the people who enforce those type of things.
So we would push back against those kind of requirements being in an animal (sic) agreement because a housing provider should not be able to provide you with a notice of conviction because the vaccination is out of date.  That doesn't make sense.
Moving down to number eight.  Any animal waste that may accumulate in a tray inside a unit will be disposed of properly and promptly.  What does that mean?  How is a housing provider supposed to enforce that?
That seems like a housing provider inappropriately trying to regulate somebody's housekeeping.  Because I imagine somebody with an emotional support cat, is the housing provider really going to come in to see how often they, you know, change the litter box?
Is that really something that you may risk eviction on?  It doesn't make sense.
Number nine, you know, there's a lot of provisions in these kind of agreements that have to do with indemnifying the housing provider from any kind of liability for injury or property damage.  Those types of terms also are inappropriate for an accommodation request.
And then, you know, moving down to number 12, if you're going to leave your animal alone or unattended for more than 24 hours, providing that the housing provider can come in, you know, without notice, seize the animal, and turn it over to authorities, that has all sorts of notice and due process issues and concerns written all over it.
People may leave their animal alone for more than 24 hours, but have somebody who comes in and feeds it and, you know, especially for people who may have a history or frequency of hospitalizations, where they don't bring their animal with them, but they have family members or friends who check in everyday or so.
So those types of terms are really just concerning and really inappropriate.
Next slide.
Here's another example that's even more egregious [chuckles].  Up at the top, you know, this housing provider is asking for type or breed.  That's really not information that should be considered, so it's kind of "Why are you asking for that to be on here?"
They're asking that there be confirmation that the animal is spayed, neutered, and there's vet authorization.  Again, that's not a housing provider's role.
No limit on liability.  That's problematic.
All service animals must be kennelled when the resident is away from their home.  Highly problematic.  If somebody has an emotional support animal, the animal is most likely not going to be allowed at that person's workplace, so this housing provider is then making a term of the lease agreement that the resident, whenever they're at work, have their animal in a kennel within their own home, rather than free to roam about the home.  That is a violation of fair housing rights.
Resident shall not permit the assistance animal in other apartments, laundry room, office, et cetera.  That violates a person's ability and right to have their assistance dog accompany them to all areas open to the public in their housing.  So that provision is also illegal.
Spayed or neutered, we talked about that already.
And then inspections ‑‑ I'm sorry, my glasses are not strong enough to read this small print ‑‑ but you get the gist.  These are all the types of things that you may see in service animal agreements that potentially violate the law, the fair housing law, and you should push up against.
Next slide.
Okay.  Finally, talking about California Assembly Bill 468.
Next slide.
So AB 468 is an assembly bill that was enacted in 2021.  The bill was co‑sponsored by Guide Dogs For the Blind and Canine Companions.  It is a bill that flew under most of our radar.
It was aimed at towards curbing emotional support animals in public spaces, fraudulent emotional support animals, I should say.
What ‑‑ it does two things, two main things:  It requires a business selling emotional support dogs and/or emotional support animal vests, tags, or certifications to notify buyers that an ESA is not specifically trained to be a service dog and is not entitled to the rights and privileges accorded by law to service dogs.
So, you know, it's a poorly ‑‑ I ‑‑ I'll say I think it's a poorly‑written bill, and it is part of the Health and Safety Code now.
It's hard to understand, this, I imagine, was intended to dissuade businesses that sell items and certifications and vests and tags, to make them think twice about doing that, because a lot of these businesses put those out there without checking that dogs are legitimate, I guess.
And then the second thing that the bill does, which is of most concern to housing advocates, is that it places conditions on healthcare practitioners, providing documentation relating to an individual's need for an emotional support dog.
And the cite for where AB 468 is now located is health and safety code sections 122317 through 122318.
Next slide.
A couple of things to note, the plain language of the bill and the statute where it's present now, it's limited to emotional support dogs.
So it doesn't apply to service dogs and it doesn't apply to other types of emotional support animals.
And also, the plain language of the statute limits its obligations or requirements to healthcare practitioners, which is something that's specifically defined under the law.  They're licensed and regulated folks, regulated pursuant to a certain part of the Business and Provisions Code.
Next slide.
So specifically what the bill provides on documentation.  It states that a healthcare practitioner may not provide documentation relating to an individual's need for an emotional support dog unless they meet certain criteria.
And those criteria are:  That the person possess a valid, active license; that their license to provide professional services within the scope of the license in the jurisdiction in which the documentation is being provided; that they establish a client provider relationship with the individual for at least 30 days prior to providing the documentation for the emotional support dog.
And there is a carved out exception for people who are unhoused.
And then that they complete a clinical evaluation of the individual prior to giving documentation in support of the emotional support dog.
Next slide.
So then the question for housing advocates is:  How does AB 468 impact fair housing rights?  And the answer is it shouldn't.
I used to say it doesn't.  Now I just say it shouldn't.  Because it does, in unintended ways.
AB 468 does not, by its own language, restrict or change existing federal and state law relating to a person's right for accommodations and equal access to housing.
So it shouldn't apply in situations where you're talking about someone needing an assistance animal in housing.
Next slide.
AB 468 also, in my opinion, conflicts with state and federal fair housing laws.  So despite the carve out in the language of the bill itself, it conflicts with state and federal fair housing law.
And there's a couple of cites here.  It would be invalid because it's preempted by the purposes in the plain language of the Fair Housing Act.
And then accordingly, it would also be invalid under our state law.
Our state law regulations do not cross‑reference that code section of the Health and Safety Code where AB 468 was enacted.
And our federal ‑‑ our state laws are far more flexible on what is required to establish the need for an accommodation.  It's not required that people go to a healthcare practitioner; they can get documentation of disability and need from a social worker, from documentation having to do with receipt of disability benefits, from peer support groups, from non‑medical providers, or any other reliable third party.
Next slide.
And the Civil Rights Department, the State Civil Rights Department has also, you know, put out materials that stress that AB 468 does not apply to housing.
In their emotional support animals and fair housing law publication, there's a link there, at question 13, they clarified that FEHA invalidates any state law to the extent it purports to require or permit any unlawful housing discrimination, including the denial of reasonable accommodations.
Therefore, housing providers must allow reasonable accommodations for emotional support animals under the rules described and cited in their frequently asked questions, which refers to the state law regulations on assistance animals.
Including existing rules regarding what type of documentation can establish one's disability.
And disability‑related need for an emotional support animal.
Which, again, is broader than a healthcare practitioner, including things like social workers, family members, not medical providers.
Next slide.
Some of the issues created by AB 468 that come up in the housing context.  Despite the carve out in the statute, healthcare providers have been more reluctant to provide verification for emotional support dogs since this law has done into effect, and people have raised that a number of times on the LISTSERV.
Advocates are encountering situations where there is a legitimate need to emotional support dog but has no access to a healthcare provider that will be able to provide verification.
Next slide.
So some strategies for navigating those issues.  Educate and advocate with healthcare practitioners to kind of alleviate any fears that they have that they may be violating the law when you're dealing with assistance dogs in the housing context.
I know that that's hard, but that's what we have to try to do.
Be flexible and creative in gathering documentation.  For example, and we've mentioned this already, confirmation of disability can come from a large number of other resources, like peer support groups, non‑medical service agencies, any reliable other reliable third party.
And you can also refer to the Federal Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity notice, I provide a link to that, and disability may include a government agency, like Social Security where somebody is receiving disability benefits or housing or who receives a subsidy or voucher based specifically on disability.
There's also the possibility that advocates can launch some kind of legislative or legal challenge to this provision.
One thing I'll noticed, it was supported by Guide Dogs For the Blind or Canine Companions but doesn't resolve any issues with this in the marketplace.
My sense is dealing with this issue, people going into stores and restaurants claiming pets to be emotional support animals, and the frustration, you know, and rightfully so, the frustration that that caused people.  And particularly people in the blind community who then get some of the flack about animals in the marketplace.
But neither federal law nor state law recognize a right to have your emotional support animal in those types of public spaces, so this law really doesn't get to them at all.
It just creates a lot of headaches for the rest of us who have to then deal with these unintended consequences of medical providers being really, really reluctant to support an individual in asking for an accommodation.
That's the last slide in the presentation.  I see that there's a number of questions and that there's also people talking in the chat.
I wanted to know if people had other experiences or ideas about dealing with the AB 468 issue in the housing context, or just sharing experiences with pet addendums and pet screening and things like that.
But let me look at the ‑‑ I think we can stop the recording here and then I'll go on to Q&A.  

[Pause].  

>> MICHELLE UZETA:  Tina, is that okay?  

>> VOICE:  Recording stopped.  

>> MICHELLE UZETA:  All right.  Thank you.  So we have a question here, and I can't say I'll know all the answers, but I appreciate the questions; where an ESA is not potty trained and it is known that the animal is doing the business in the apartment home, does the landlord have to wait until the tenant vacates and try to recover damages or can they evict possibly for health reasons?
That's a good question.  It really, you know, I'm going to give the vague answer of "it depends."
You know, if the person has, like a miniature pony as their emotional support animal and it's really doing damage to the home, then I would think, you know, the animal using the restroom in the home may rise to the level of a health concern.
Or may cause such significant damage that a notice to quit or eviction might be an appropriate response.
But then in that situation, you would want to look at engaging in the interactive process and seeing whether there's other accommodations that can be put into place to allow the person to remain housed, like, you know, an agreement that the person will replace the carpeting upon moving or putting some sort of a tarp on the floor or limiting where the animal goes in the apartment, or something like that.  There are always ‑‑ those types of things you have to discuss.
And I hope that answers the question.
The next question:  If the housing provider is denying housing to a tenant on the basis of the landlord having a severe allergy, would that constitute a valid excuse?
Again, these have to be analyzed on a case‑by‑case basis.  Housing providers often do try to limit people from moving into units or complexes based on other people having allergies.
It's uncommon that an allergy rises to the level of a legal disability, so the obligation to accommodate is really going to be to the person who's using the assistance animal.
That said, best practice is always to engage in an interactive process and see if there's ways to navigate the needs of both people in the housing setting.
So, for example, I had a tenant at one point who was moving in an assistance dog.  There was somebody else on the premises, and it was one of those smaller units that has, like, six units and a shared laundry room.
And so part of what we kind of arranged there was that the tenants had a schedule about when they would use the laundry room.  So they limited the contact that they would have with each other to minimize any impact that the dog might have on the other person's allergies.
So sometimes it's thinking creatively that way, rather than going in with, like, a legal hammer.
Arthur asks:  Can a homeless person with an emotional support animal be denied entrance to a homeless shelter?
The answer is no.  Unless the homeless shelter is somehow exempt from fair housing or anti‑discrimination law.
But people who are unhoused and using service animals or emotional support animals should be able to access shelters.
I did a case years ago about this, with the L.A. Shelter System.  There are a lot of concerns that shelter staff have about animals... [Sighs]... about them not being actual assistance animals, about behavioral concerns, about cleanliness concerns, about the animals having fleas or other issues.
And those have to be addressed on a case‑by‑case basis.  But in general, no, people who use emotional support and service animals should be allowed into shelters with those supports.
Is a housing provider allowed to require a tenant to provide vaccination records?
My position is no.  Again, a housing provider shouldn't be conditioning housing on those items.
Although it is recognized that animals should be vaccinated and if your municipality requires all animals to be licensed, then you need to license your animal.
But you shouldn't be ‑‑ it's not a housing provider's job to enforce those requirements.  A housing provider should not be denying housing based on those types of things.
Housing should not be considered contingent on updated vaccinations and things.
Is a property management company for a condo permitted to require a physician certificate for assistance animals?
It depends.  First of all ‑‑ well, somebody has to have a disability, right, to be able to show that they have a right to reasonable accommodation, including the accommodation of an assistance animal.
If a person's disability and disability need is not clear or apparent, the housing provider can ask for documentation or proof that the person has a disability and that the animal is required due to that disability and has some connection to the person's ability to use and enjoy their housing.
It doesn't have to be a physician.  It can be a social worker, it can be proof of public benefits, it can be other types of things.
Are they entitled to a person's diagnosis?  No.  Are they entitled to access the person's medical records?  No.
But they can ask for some kind of credible documentation that the person has a disability and has a need.  So I hope that answers that question.
I know that there's a lot of comments in the chat.  I'm just going to go through and see if there's any questions.  

[Pause].  

>> MICHELLE UZETA:  Oh, you know, I do want to mention ‑‑ okay, so ‑‑ I know we have a couple minutes, Lauren has mentioned that we have a case where a client asserts she needs a fence around the back yard for her assistance animals and the landlord is claiming undue financial burden.
I would be interested in talking to you about that.  I have had a couple of cases like that, where somebody has sought some kind of a fence or I had somebody who wanted what they called a catio, like a play on the word patio, because she needed to encompass her cats on her patio when she went outside to get sun therapy; she had a vitamin D deficiency as well as some other types of issues.
So I would love to talk to you about that.
Ordinarily it shouldn't be an undue financial burden for that type of accommodation.
It actually probably is more of a modification, so I don't know if you're talking about the client asking to install the fence and the housing provider saying no, you're not going to do that.
Undue financial burden really shouldn't come up there, because that is a modification, as opposed to an accommodation.
But I'm happy to chat about that.
And Arthur, I already answered your question.
Yes, Melissa, I saw your post when we were talking about the addendums, telling people ‑‑ the addendum is violating your right to have people into your home or to visit other people, a landlord should not be providing or trying to restrict your ability to move and interact with other people in your housing.
And Chris, yes, I will share the PowerPoint slide and also the video will be posted on DREDF's website.
Navneet from DRC commented that they're trying to get a legislative fix for the AB 468 issues and has asked that people share compelling stories with them.
And Navneet, if it's okay, I'll stick your e‑mail in the e‑mail that I send to all the attendees with that message.
Yes, we'll share the recordings.
The FEHA regs, yes, very good, there is a site on the FEHA regulations.  If you haven't read any of this information, there are people on this call that assisted in drafting those regulations and they're really, really solid.
I think that gets us, like, right under time.  So I just want to thank people for coming.
I'm sorry Dianne could not join us.  Sorry for stuttering through the entire presentation.
But I wish you all a great holiday season, a great weekend.  And I hope to talk to you all soon.  Thank you!

[Concludes at 12:55 p.m. PT] 

** This text is unproofed and provided in a rough‑draft format.  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) Captioning is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.  This is not a certified transcript. **