Skip to Content
Supreme Court of New Jersey Reversed Dismissal Regarding Emotional Support Animal
By October 29, 2024 Posted in Community Association Law Share
On March 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the dismissal of a couple’s counterclaim against their condominium association for discrimination. The association had taken legal action against the couple for violating its rules after they adopted a 63-pound dog as an emotional support animal.
In Players Place II Condominium Association, Inc. v. K.P., decided earlier this year, residents adopted a dog named Luna as an ESA. The Association had a rule limiting pets to those weighing less than 30 pounds. Luna was 63 pounds at the time of the initial lawsuit, which the Association filed after finding out about the dog’s presence in the condominium. The defendants K.P. and B.F. filed a counterclaim for the violation of state and federal anti-discrimination laws.
B.F. had not been prescribed an ESA, but had her therapist, a licensed clinical social worker testified that ESAs can benefit those with mental health disorders by decreasing symptoms and improving quality of life and ability to function. B.F. testified that Luna reduced the length and severity of her depressive episodes and improved her ability to cope with stress. There had been no reports of noise or disruption by Luna to the Association.
In response, the Association called a clinical and forensic psychologist who offered testimony that B.F. did not suffer a substantial limitation of her daily activities and was not restricted by her condition. The psychologist specifically opined that B.F. “did not require a dog to have equal use and enjoyment of the [condominium] unit.”
The Appellate Court had stated, and the Supreme Court agreed, that B.F. was disabled under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. The Supreme Court further cited regulations promulgated by the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights that reasonable accommodations must be made for disabled people “when such accommodations or modifications may be necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common areas.” N.J.A.C. 13-13-3.4(f)(2).
Regarding ESAs, the Supreme Court further pointed to the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights’ guidance that a housing provider must consider disability-related reasonable accommodations for an ESA based on whether the ESA would create an undue burden. Likewise, HUD has suggested that residents may request reasonable accommodation for an assistance animal and encourages housing providers to “engage in a good-faith dialogue with the requestor” in order to accommodate a disability.
The Supreme Court summarized that the resident seeking an ESA must prove that they have a disability and show that the requested accommodation is necessary to “afford them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling[,]” while the housing provider must engage in “good-faith interactive dialogue to exchange information, consider alternative options, and attempt to resolve or narrow any issues.” If the issue goes to court, the test of whether the accommodation will be granted will be the balancing of the needs and benefits of the accommodation against the costs and burdens it presents.
At Griffin Alexander, P.C., we understand the complexities and challenges that community associations face in light of this recent ruling. Our experienced legal team is here to guide your association through the necessary amendments to your governing documents, ensuring compliance with the law and protecting your community’s interests.
The information in this Client Alert is provided solely for information purposes. It should not be construed as legal advice on any specific matter and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular circumstances. Each legal matter is unique, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.