- Hi everyone. My name's Michelle Uzeta. I'm the deputy legal director at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. And welcome to our webinar on Assistance Animals in Housing. This is the second of four housing related webinars that we're holding in the month of April in celebration of Fair Housing Month. Next slide please. We do have a lot to get through today. Our agenda is going to both, well, here's the agenda. We're going to provide an overview of fair housing laws that protect the right of a person with a disability to reside with an assistance animal in their housing. We're going to highlight some relevant cases and then we're going to discuss some of the current challenges that I know advocates are seeing, specifically pet screening, the use of pet addendums and AB 468, which is a California bill that was enacted not too long ago. Next slide. So first, discussing a little bit the obligations under the Fair Housing Act, which is a federal law and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act make it unlawful for a housing provider to refuse to provide reasonable accommodations to tenants or prospective tenants with disabilities. A reasonable accommodation is a change, exception or adjustment to a rural policy practice or service that may be necessary for a person with disabilities to have equal opportunity to use and enjoy their housing. And by housing we're talking about both individual units and common areas or that's necessary to help them fulfill a housing program's obligations. So for example, changing the due date for rent to accommodate someone who receives public benefits later than the first of the month would be the kind of change that's required as a reasonable accommodation or allowing a co-signer on a lease to meet income requirements. That's also something that might be required. A very common reasonable accommodation request is for the waiver of a no pet policy. So a person with a disability can reside with their assistance animal in their housing. It's a very common request. Next slide please. I wanted to briefly go over the elements of a claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation because it will provide you some context when we're talking about the cases that we'll be discussing today. So in order to show that you have had your right to reasonable accommodation denied, there's five things that you need to show. One, that you have a disability which is defined under fair housing law as a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits a life activity like mobility, the ability to work, self-care. Second, that the housing provider knew or should reasonably be expected to know of the disabilities. So this is both a direct knowledge or constructive knowledge requirement. Third, that the accommodation is necessary to give the person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy their housing. Fourth, the accommodation request must be reasonable, meaning it doesn't create an undue burden, doesn't fundamentally change the nature of the services of the housing provider, that it doesn't create a direct threat to other tenants or to property, that type of analysis. And then lastly, that the housing provider has refused to make the requested accommodation. Next slide please. So what do we mean by the term assistance animal? It's slightly different, but mostly consistent between federal and state law. Under the Fair Housing Act, the Federal Fair Housing Act an assistance animal is an animal that works, provides assistance or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability. And that's also referred to as a service animal or it also includes a dog, I'm sorry, an animal that provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified effects of a person's disability. And this is commonly referred to as an emotional support animal or a companion animal or comfort animal. Different terms like that. Under state law, the definition is an animal that works, provides assistance or performs tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. Again, that's kind of referring to the service animal or provides emotional, cognitive or similar support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of an individual's disability. So again, the term assistance animal includes both what you know as service animals or emotional support animals, and it's important to note that assistance animals are not considered pets. Next slide please. Special training is not required to establish that an animal is an assistance animal. However, there must be a nexus between the individual's disability and the assistance that the animal is providing. So for example, someone who is blind and uses a service animal to help them get around across the street, navigate in the community, there's that nexus there. There's no legal requirement that an animal be registered or certified. So if a landlord is asking you for certification papers, registration papers, that is not something that exists. It's not something that's required. Businesses that claim to register or certify animals, especially ones that are found online, are charging for a service that's unnecessary to establish that you need an accommodation. And I would recommend that people not use those types of services. Largely, they're fraudulent. Next page please. So now talking a little bit about when and how to request a service animal or an assistance animal. Housing applications that ask about a applicant's disability or specific accommodation needs would be illegal. That's not something you have to disclose at the application stage. Housing applications do often ask about pets in the household. Assistance dogs, assistance animals are not pets. So I would recommend that people not answer that question to avoid getting screened out. The stickier situation is when a housing application asks whether a household has animals and doesn't use the term pets because an assistance animal is an animal. So how do you answer that kind of question? I've had clients before who've left that blank because they did not want to disclose their disability or accommodation need at that point when they're applying for housing, only later to have the housing provider claim that they filled out the application in a fraudulent way and those are little bit tricky to get around, been in mediations, been before judges who kind of lean towards saying, well, why didn't they disclose? But you know, you don't have to disclose your disability or accommodation need at the application stage. It allows housing providers an opportunity to screen you out based on your disability and it would be very hard to prove at that point. Next slide. There is a case called Book versus Hunter, which is out of Oregon, which is helpful when you have a situation involving you know, whether or not a tenant or prospective tenant filled out an application correctly. In that case, the prospective tenant had their application denied because she did not disclose her need for a service animal on her application. The application form only asked about pets, and the tenant rightfully did not consider her assistance animal a pet. So she did not complete that part of the application. In the case, the court found that while the housing provider may have preferred that the applicant make her request on the rental application, that the Fair Housing Act does not allow providers to deny requests for accommodations or deny housing for that reason for not disclosing on the application. And part of that is because requests for reasonable accommodations can come any time, they can be made at any point from when you're applying to all the way through eviction stage. So that's that. Next slide please. Another case I wanted to mention that has to do with the requesting of accommodation process is McClendon versus Bresler. This is a case that I've been litigating for the last three years. It's up on its second appeal right now. It involved a woman, Ms. McClendon and her co-applicant. They applied for housing, disclosed on the application that the household included a support animal. The landlord, Mr. Bresler, responded in email that it was his policy not to accept dogs even if they were service dogs. And then there was a series of emails back and forth between the co-applicant and Mr. Bresler where the co-applicant used terms like verified support animal, the ADA, reasonable accommodations, support and service animals are covered by federal ADA laws, reasonable accommodation requirements. It's illegal to discriminate against a prospective tenant based on the need for support or service animal. Her application was denied by Mr. Bresler despite these communications and McClendon sued. Next slide. Mr. Bresler argued that he was not liable for discrimination because he never spoke to Ms. McClendon who was the one with the disability in person and that Ms. McClendon never told him explicitly that she had a disability. The court, the district court granted summary judgment in the case against Ms. McClendon finding that Mr. Bresler had no knowledge of her disability, therefore he was not liable for discrimination. And we appealed that summary judgment order and the 9th Circuit reversed. The 9th Circuit held a couple of things that are important. First, that it was of no import that Ms. McClendon never communicated directly to Mr. Bresler. She was still an aggrieved person under the Fair Housing Act withstanding to sue despite most of communication happening with the co-applicant or through the co-applicant. And it's also true that accommodation requests can be made by a family member, doesn't have to be made directly by the person with a disability. The 9th Circuit also found that it was inconsequential that Mr. Bresler was not expressly informed that Ms. McClendon has a disability because knowledge can be both actual or constructive. And the court found that in that case the communications from the co-applicant that used terms like reasonable accommodation, ADA, support animal and also Mr. Bresler's statement that it was his policy not to accept animals even if service animals indicated that he should have had some knowledge that what he was doing was wrong and that a disability related accommodation was being requested. Next slide please. The 9th Circuit remanded the case for trial on the issue of whether Mr. Bresler had knowledge. So we had to actually go to trial on that issue. And at that trial, Mr. Bresler asserted the same arguments that he did at the 9th Circuit level. That is that he didn't speak to Ms. McClendon directly and he was not informed explicitly that she had a disability. And Ms. McClendon prevailed at trial. The court found that the application that noted the support animal and the emails from her co-applicant led to just one reasonable conclusion. And that was that someone in the household, and in this case it was Ms. McClendon needed the animal as a reasonable accommodation due to a disability. Mr. McClendon has appealed, that appeal is pending. He's still arguing the same things that have been rejected previously by both the District court and the 9th Circuit, that he didn't talk to Ms. McClendon directly and that he was not informed explicitly that she had a disability. He also added for the first time on appeal the argument that the co applicant's reference to the ADA was false because the Americans with Disabilities Act technically does not apply to his private housing. And that somehow, he should be not found liable there. And it's our position that that argument should also fail. The joint statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice on reasonable accommodations states that people do not need to use the term Fair Housing Act or use the term reasonable accommodation in order to assert their right and make a valid request for accommodation. All you need to do is provide enough information to place a housing provider on notice that the request is being made and it's a request that's related to your disability. Next slide please. So when processing requests for accommodations, you know, what kind of questions can a housing provider ask or what can they require? And it does differ a little bit between service animals and support animals. So if you're talking about a service animal, and again, this is one that's been kinda individually trained to meet an individual's specific needs that performs a work or a task related to the person's disability, the housing provider can ask, are you a person with a disability? And they can also ask, what is the disability related task that your animal's been trained to perform? They can't ask an individual with a disability to demonstrate the task. They can't ask to see the dog and watch the dog perform or the animal perform. And they can also ask for reliable disability related information if the person's disability or the disability related need for the animal are not apparent. So someone who uses a wheelchair who is using a dog to pick up items, that's pretty apparent, if it is a person with a psychiatric disability and the the dog provides some kind of tactile pressure as an accommodation for the person, that's something that the housing provider cannot say, well I need to see your dog perform before I'll believe it's a service animal. When you're talking about support animals, it's a little bit different. You follow the general process for processing reasonable accommodation requests. The housing provider has the right to know that you have some sort of disability and that the animal is necessary, reasonable related to your disability. Support animals generally, you don't have to provide evidence that they provide support or comfort. That's something animals naturally do. So that's not required. A quick note that things like animal vests or ID cards, certifications, those are not in and of themselves documentation of a disability or the need for accommodation. Those are again, the type of things that people often sell online. Vests and ID cards are fine if you wanna take your dog out into public and make it known so people don't ask a whole lot of questions, but they really have no legal import. Next slide please. So what do we mean by reliable disability related information? Again, a person's not required to disclose their specific diagnosis or disability, they only need to disclose enough information to document that they have a disability related need for the accommodation. You know, in this case the assistance animal. So that documentation can come from a variety of places, including the individual's own credible statement. You can use documentation of the receipt of disability benefits like SSI or veterans benefits. You can also use documentation from a reliable third party such as a healthcare provider, therapist, social worker, a non-medical service provider, a member of a peer support group that you participate in, a parent, child or other relative, someone who's familiar with your disability and disability related needs. What is going to be reliable or sufficient is going to be determined on a case by case basis. Next slide please. Before denying a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal due either to a lack of information confirming a person's disability or a lack of information confirming the need for the animal, a housing provider is encouraged to engage in a good faith dialogue under Federal Fair Housing Law. Encouraged is the key word here. The Federal Fair Housing Act does not contain a requirement that housing providers engage in an interactive process. A couple of cases to highlight here, the first is Howard versus HMK holdings. That's a 9th Circuit case from 2021 that held that there was no standalone claim or liability for the failure to engage in an interactive process. Other cases, Rodriguez v Morgan, for example, have held that the failure to engage in an interactive process can be considered. It's a factor to consider when you're doing an analysis of a failure to accommodate claim. Cases like Rodriguez were not overturned or anything like that by Howard versus HMK holdings. They're consistent with each other. But under the Federal Fair Housing Act, it's pretty clear you don't have an individual claim for failure to engage in an interactive process. But the failure to engage in an interactive process is something to consider. It's a factor when you're looking at whether or not a fair housing provider has violated someone's right to accommodation. And then finally noting that the HUD DOJ joint statement on reasonable accomodations use the language that a housing provider should use in interactive process. So it's certainly encouraged. Next slide please. A case, a Federal Fair Housing Act case on this particular issue is Smith versus Powdrill and that's out of the central district of California. A case from 2013. In that case, a tenant was threatened with eviction after requesting that she be allowed to live with a companion animal as an accommodation for her mental health disabilities. The landlord asserted that they didn't believe that she had a disability and continued to threaten her with eviction. In finding in the tenant's favor. The court stressed that the landlord's failure to engage in an interactive process, holding, and this is a quote, if a landlord is skeptical of a tenant's alleged disability or the landlord's ability to provide an accommodation, it is incumbent upon the landlord to request documentation or open a dialogue. And the case cited the Rodriguez case again showing that the failure to engage in an interactive process, although not a separate claim under the federal law, it is something that comes that's very relevant to whether or not a housing provider violated someone's rights. Next slide, please. Compare California law. The California regulations under the Fair Employment Housing Act that went into effect in 2020 do clarify that a interactive process is required under state law. So a housing provider must engage with someone requesting an accommodation or their representative. The purpose is to exchange information to identify, evaluate, and implement reasonable accommodations or modifications during the interactive process. A housing provider cannot insist on specific types of evidence. Medical exams cannot be required. Also, if the housing provider believes that the request for accommodation cannot be granted, that the provider must engage in the interactive process to determine if there is some kind of alternative that is feasible. So again, federal law not required encouraged factor state law is required. Next slide. When can an assistance dog be excluded? Just a couple of circumstances where allowing the animal would impose an undue financial or administrative burden or would fundamentally alter the nature of the housing program or services where the specific animal in question poses a direct threat. And we'll talk about that a little further. Direct threat to the health or safety of others that can't be reduced or eliminated by another kind of accommodation or the specific animal would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by the provision of another reasonable accommodation. Next slide please. When we use the term undue financial or administrative burden, the factors considered are cost benefit to the tenant of the accommodation, the financial resources of the provider. Not necessarily limited to one single property in question, but you look at their overall finances, the availability of equally effective but less expensive or less burdensome alternatives. Quick note that some cost or financial burden on a provider is to be expected. And then the term fundamental alteration, you're looking at whether or not the request for accommodation, in this, case assistance animal, would alter the essential nature of the housing providers operations. And I've not seen these types of defenses come up often, if at all when talking about assistance animals and housing. But those are the defenses available. Next slide. An assistance animal can also be excluded if it causes a direct threat. So it doesn't need to be allowed if it causes a direct threat to the health or safety of others, which is defined as a significant risk of bodily harm or would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others. And that harm cannot be sufficiently mitigated or eliminated by an accommodation. Next slide. The factors that you consider when evaluating whether or not an assistance animal constitutes a direct threat include the nature, duration and severity of the risk of the threat, the likelihood that the threat will actually occur. And third, whether there are any accommodations that would sufficiently mitigate or eliminate the direct threat like you know, limiting access or going a different route on the property to avoid certain interactions with other animals or people. So those are the types of accommodations we're talking about. Next slide please. It does require an individualized assessment. The determination that an assistance animal poses a direct threat must be based specifically on the animal in question. It also must rely on objective evidence about that particular animal's conduct. You can't be making broad generalizations based on breed or size or weight, things like that. The age of the animal either. And the determination cannot be made on evidence that's so old that it's not credible or reliable or on mere speculations or fears. Next slide please. Assistance animals are allowed in all areas that tenants are allowed unless it would create an undue burden or fundamentally alter the provider services. So I've sometimes gotten calls where a tenant is told they can have an assistance animal on the property but they can't bring it into common areas. They can't bring it into the gym that's on site or the laundry room or in the pool area. Those types of restrictions are inappropriate and violate fair housing law. Next slide. A good case on this out of Nevada is Sanzaro versus Ardiente Homeowners Association. In that case, a reasonable accommodation claim was successfully brought against a homeowner's association by one of its members. She had mobility issues and was denied access to the homeowner's clubhouse while accompanied by her service dog. And in that case, the court found that the homeowner association's clubhouse qualified as a dwelling under the Fair Housing Act, which is correct because dwellings include common areas and that the dog was trained to assist the homeowner with acute pain attacks and with retrieving her walker. So there was a clear nexus between her disability and the services provided by the dog. So the dog met the definition of an assistance animal, and the court also found that the dog did not pose any risk or threat of harm to anyone in the clubhouse and should have been allowed. Next slide please. Sometimes, you'll get questions about whether or not a tenant can have more than one assistance animal. The answer is yes, that they can. However, each animal must be individually determined to meet the requirements for an assistance animal. And the cumulative of impact of having multiple animals in the same dwelling may be considered when assessing whether or not there's an undue burden or fundamental alteration going on. I once had a call from someone who had 500 birds and claimed that they were all assistance animal, that was very hard to advocate for that individual, but we did. Next slide. Pet deposits. Tenants can't be required to pay pet fees, additional rent or any other kind of deposit, liability insurance, again, because assistance animals are not pets. So they're not subject to the same rules and requirements as pets. A housing provider may charge a tenant for damage that an assistance animal causes if it's above ordinary wear and tear. And if it's the provider's usual practice to charge tenants for those kinds of damages. Next slide. Again, pet rules do not apply to assistance animals. Other restrictions also don't apply. Like things like the breed or size limitations, those cannot be applied to assistance animals. Housing providers can limit access based on specific issues with the animal's conduct as we discussed when talking about direct threat. But again, you can't have these general rules that may be applied to pets like a 25 pound rule or no pit bull rule. Those cannot be applied to assistance animals. You really have to analyze the specific animal in question. Next slide please. Assistance dog handlers do have responsibilities. They're responsible for feeding, maintaining the animal, providing veterinary care and controlling their animal in common areas, in their unit, et cetera. The individual can do this on their own or with the assistance of family, friends, volunteers or service providers. And these kinds of responsibilities exist regardless of any lease terms that address them. So if you have an assistance animal, it's your responsibility to take care of your assistance animal. Nobody else is, not the housing providers. Next slide please. This is just a slide providing some resources that are really helpful to people doing advocacy related to assistance animals. There is the HUD FHEO Notice on assessing a person's request to have an animal as an accommodation. That's a very useful document and resource that gives you HUD's position on what housing providers should and shouldn't be doing when they're processing requests for accommodation. There's also the joint statement of HUD and the DOJ on reasonable accommodations which provides you with a broad overview of your right to accommodations and deals with some examples that involve assistance animals. And then California specific, the California Department of Fair Employment Housing has a publication called Emotional Support Animals and Fair Housing Law. I will note that they recently updated that publication so the link that I have there is incorrect. But I will send it to everyone when I send the slides out after this presentation. Next slide please. Next slide please. So moving on to some of the current issues that people are seeing, some more challenging issues. The first is pet screening. Pet screening is the same as a, it's like a background check on a tenant's pet dog, cat, or other animal. It's a way for landlords to get information about a prospective tenant's animal prior to approving their rent application and prior to an existing tenant bringing a new pet into their unit. Next slide. Pet screening can seek out a variety of factors about an animal including its breed size, weight, gender, age. They'll oftentimes they'll ask how long the tenant has owned the pet, whether the pet is housebroken, the amount of time the pet will be left alone at home every day. The pet's medical history including vaccinations, any significant health issues, the name of the pet's veterinarian, a history of the pet's behavioral problems such as noise complaints, aggression or biting, and also references from other landlords. Next slide please. Many landlords do pets screening themselves by asking tenants questions during the application process or by having the tenants fill out special pet application forms. But it's becoming increasingly common for landlords and especially big management companies to use third party pet screening companies to do this screening for them. And in those situations, tenants are instructed to create an online profile with the screening company and a big one is petscreening.com and to answer a number of questions before their pet will be approved. Next slide please. So then there's a question of whether or not landlords can require pet screening for people who are seeking to reside with an assistance animal. And it's our position that landlords cannot require pet screening for assistance animals 'cause people with disabilities who use those kinds of animals can live with those animals as a reasonable accommodation for their disabilities. They are not pets and they should not be subject to the same rules and requirements as ordinary pets. And we believe that requiring pet screening for assistance animals violates fair housing law. Next slide please. And just to go over a couple of the reasons why we believe that requiring pet screening for assistance animals violates fair housing law. Under Federal Fair Housing Law and State as well, accommodations cannot be conditioned on the execution of additional documents. So requiring someone to someone to fill out a pet screening profile and be approved in that way, it's an additional step and additional burden that people with disabilities shouldn't have to do. And also because requests for reasonable accommodations need not be made in a particular manner. So if I'm a person with a disability asking to reside with an assistance animal and somebody says, well we're only gonna process your request if you go fill out this profile and go through steps A, B, C, that's requiring people to go through a process in a particular manner and that is explicitly not something that can be required under fair housing law. Next slide please. Additionally, some pet screening companies require that tenants agree to condition in terms like a waiver of liability or mandatory arbitration. So if you've ever looked on petscreening.com for example, and look at their terms of service, in very small print on their website, if you fill out that profile and later are discriminated against, there's a waiver of liability, there's mandated arbitration. Those types of things shouldn't be required under fair housing law. A housing provider cannot condition approval of an accommodation on an agreement to special terms or conditions and requesting or requiring a waiver or mandatory arbitration would be a special term or condition. Next slide please. Pet screening companies also often ask tenants for information that's not necessary to process a request for an assistance animal. The things like the tenant's specific diagnosis or for unnecessary medical records, I've received complaints about that. They ask for the animal's breed, size, for photos, vaccination records, microchip information, and none of this information's required to process an accommodation request. And in fact, asking for some of this information, medical records and specific diagnosis in particular is either unlawful or at least at a minimum inconsistent with HUD and DOJ guidance. Next slide please. So what can a person do if they're asked to complete a pet screening? A couple of suggestions. You know, explain to the landlord that your animal is an assistance animal and cannot be subject to pet screening. You can share resources like the HUD FHEO notice, the joint statement on reasonable accommodations, the Civil Rights Department's Emotional Support Animals and Fair Housing Law document that's on their website. At DREDF, we also did a blog on this topic that I've heard some people have used with success to negotiate with their housing provider 'cause it does set forth kind of what was in the previous couple of slides. You also have the right to file a complaint with the Civil Rights Department at the state level. Somebody just put into the chat was it mentioned whether landlords can require support animals to have certain vaccinations. That also does come up a lot. So service animals, support animals, assistance animals, they may be required by local ordinances or local laws to have certain vaccinations to be registered, have certain licenses. Those kinds of things may apply, but it's not the housing provider's responsibility to enforce those and request for accommodation cannot be conditioned on those types of things. So, you know, you always wanna advise your tenant to follow whatever laws applied to them in their municipality. But a housing provider landlord shouldn't be saying, I need proof of your vaccinations before I'll process your request for accommodations. It's just not consistent. I'm unaware of any case law on that, but what I'm telling you is kind of consistent from what I understand from fair advocates that I've spoken to about how to address that issue. Next slide please. Moving on to pet addendums. California law permits housing providers to establish terms in a lease or rental that reasonably regulate the presence of guide dogs, signal dogs or service dogs on the premises of a housing provider. And that provision is found in the California civil code. It's part of a law that is called the Disabled Persons Act. I just note that because it's not information that is provided in the Fair Employment Housing Act, it comes from another part of the California code. Arguably the state law provision is preempted by the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits accommodations for being conditioned on the execution of additional documents or an agreement to additional terms or conditions. Like we've already said, I've never heard of any kind of, I don't know the, I've been on webinars with the California Civil Rights Department. They haven't really addressed this issue. I haven't seen this issue come up in case law. It hasn't come up in any of the cases that I've worked at. But just to let you know that it exists here. That California law, the civil code at least says that housing providers can establish some lease terms that reasonably regulate the presence of your assistance dog. Next slide. Reasonable conditions may be imposed on the use of an assistance animal. For example, restrictions on where you can have your dog go to the bathroom. Also nuisance types of behavior. Any conditions that a housing provider does have on an assistance animal cannot interfere with the animal's normal performance of their duties. And two examples, just to note, for example, a leash requirement may interfere with the ability of a guide dog, well of any kind of assistance dog to assist an individual, in which case the animal, it would be okay for the animal to be under voice control or otherwise responsive to the dog's handler. I can't say I've ever met anyone who has had to have their dog off leash to provide tasks that are necessary. But if a dog does need to be off leash to provide a certain work or task, that is allowed so long as they're otherwise under the control of the handler. Another example is a no noise requirement may interfere with a dog who needs to bark to alert somebody to danger or that there's somebody at the door. But of course if there was barking all night long or when the individual's not at home, that could violate some quiet enjoyment type of requirements, reasonable restrictions relating to nuisance type behavior. Next slide please. Some of the problems with pet addendums are that they often subject assistance dog users to terms and conditions that are applied to tenants with pets and really shouldn't be applied to them because their need for an animal is disability related. These addendums often also contain unreasonable, unwarranted and objectionable terms and may waive rights including due process and notice rights. Next slide please. I have a couple of examples and excuse me for looking down, but I can't read unless it's a little bit bigger print. This slide is a example of a comfort or service animal agreement. And the areas that I've highlighted in blue are some of the things that would be objectionable on this form. Here, the requirement is that the assistance animal must be properly licensed and have shots, vaccinations at all times. It also requires that animal waste that may be accumulated, it's worded incorrectly. But basically this housing provider is saying you have to collect animal waste on a tray inside your unit and then you have to dispose of it promptly. I don't know how they think they would regulate that or why they think they have the right to regulate that. That's like telling, you know, do they tell parents who are tenants how often they have to dispose of diaper waste or how they should dispose of diaper waste? It just doesn't make sense. There's also a requirement that, that there's a waiver of liability for guests and that they agree not to leave the animal unattended for more than 24 hours. And again, this is something where, how are they going to enforce this provision? You know, somebody with a disability may be hospitalized and have their animal at home and have a family member come in to feed it. Is that going to violate this agreement term? You know, you just don't know. Next slide. This is also another example. This one's even worse on this example. The housing provider is demanding to know the type of breed, they are requiring that the animal be spayed or neutered. They're requiring that whenever the person with a disability is not home, that the animal be locked up in a kennel rather than just be allowed to be inside their home. They add in there the right to go in and do inspections related to the animal. And there's also a provision number six there where the resident cannot be allowed in certain common areas with the animal, which we know violates fair housing law. Next slide. The last kind of issue that I wanted to talk about was California Assembly Bill 468. Next slide. This is a bill that was enacted in 2021 at certain provisions of the health and safety code in California. It requires a business selling emotional support dogs and/or emotional support dog vests, tags, or certifications to notify buyers that an emotional support dog is not specifically trained to be a service dog and is not entitled to the same rights and privileges accorded by law to service dogs. It also places conditions on healthcare practitioners providing documentation related to an individual's need for an emotional support dog. Now this particular bill flew under everybody's radar. It was coming from a place of businesses wanting to do something to prevent this idea that there's all these fake emotional support dogs running around and having access to private businesses. Neither state law or federal law that having to do with the right to animals in places of public accommodation like restaurants and stores and things. Those laws don't allow emotional support animals to be in those places to begin with. So this is kind of an unnecessary bill that was passed and I'm really sorry that advocates were not more on top of this at the time that it was happening 'cause it has created some issues in housing as we'll talk about in just a second. Next slide please. The plain language of the bill and the statute where it was enacted, it is limited to emotional support dogs and it's also limited to healthcare practitioners which are licensed and regulated pursuant to certain provisions of California's business and professions code. So it does have limited application in that way. Next slide. With regard to documentation, which are the provisions that are causing some problems for fair housing advocates, AB 468 says that a healthcare practitioner may not provide documentation relating to an individual's need for an emotional support dog unless they meet all of the following criteria. That they possess a valid active license, that they're licensed 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 with a carve out for people who are unhoused and then that they complete a clinical evaluation of the person. And again, all of this is kind of in response or triggered by this proliferation of, you know, fake ESAs in the community or the idea that that is going on. Next slide. So how does AB 468 impact fair housing rights? The answer is it shouldn't, by its own language, it does not restrict or change existing federal and state law related to a person's rights for reasonable accommodation and equal access to housing. So it shouldn't apply at all in the fair housing context if anyone is pointing to that saying this applies, you need to do this, you need to provide documentation that complies with this, no. And you can point right to that Californian Health and Safety Code provision where the language from AB 468 was enacted and say no, it does not apply in the fair housing context. Next slide. Even if it did apply, it conflicts with state and federal fair Housing law in that it puts extra burdens and requirements on people seeking to exercise their right to an emotional support dog and the Fair Housing Act and also the Fair Employment and Housing Act on the state level say that you can't put these extra burdens. Again, these extra terms, these extra conditions does not apply. Additionally, the state fair housing regulations are far more reasonable and flexible on what's required to establish a need for an accommodation. Those regulations explicitly provide that confirmation of a disability can come from a variety of sources including peer support groups, non-medical service agencies or people. Other reliable third parties. Next slide please. The California Civil Rights Department has taken a position on this. I don't know that it's so much of a position, it's really kind of stating the obvious but they put it in their materials so people can use those when advocating with housing providers that the federal, I mean, sorry, the State Fair Employment and Housing Act invalidates any state law to the extent it purports to require or permit any unlawful housing discrimination, including the denial of accommodations. Therefore, housing providers must allow accommodations for ESAs under the rules described, including existing rules regarding what type of documentation establishes someone's disability related need for an ESA. And again, that link is not correct, but I will send everybody the new link 'cause they did update that document recently. Next slide. So the issues created by this bill, despite the Fair Housing carve out and despite the fact that the bill's requirements would conflict with law, the Federal Fair Housing Law and the State Fair Housing Law, healthcare providers have been more reluctant to provide verification for emotional support dogs since this law went into effect. And advocates are encountering situations where an individual has had a legitimate need for an emotional support dog, but has no access to a healthcare provider that's willing to provide verification based on this change in the law. Next slide. So a couple of strategies for navigating these issues. Take the time to educate and advocate with healthcare practitioners to let them know that the requirements from AB 468 do not apply to them, especially if they're in the fair housing context and also if they're dealing with animals other than dogs. Because again, AB 468 applies specifically to emotional support dogs. Be flexible and creative in gathering documentation for yourself or for your clients. For example, again, confirmation of disability can come from these other sources like peer support groups, social workers, any other reliable third party. You can also look at the FHEO notice. I provided a site to that a couple of slides back that again reiterates the fact that information about disability can come from other sources. We might consider a legislative or legal challenge. I know there are advocates talking about that and collecting stories. And then of course if people have other ideas, feel free to drop those ideas in the Q&A or contact me offline. Some of you I know are on Listservs dealing with some of these issues and would love to chat with you all about how we might deal with some of these. Next slide. That brings us to the end and I know there was a lot to cover and we kind of bumbled through it, but does anybody have any questions? Most of you know how to contact me offline. I will send around a PDF of the slides along with the link to the CRD information. No questions really. All right, well it is a Friday. Okay everyone, well then I will just say thank you for attending and feel free to connect with me offline. DREDF is a support center for California legal services providers. Meaning it is part of my job to help you when you are dealing with disability related issues in your cases. And I'm always willing to field questions from folks. Shoot me an email, give me a call. I'm at your disposal. So have a great weekend and talk to you all soon Take care, bye-bye.