Vicki Montgomery wrote:
>There is FEDERAL LAW which clearly prohibits what has occurred to the
>woman who renovated her apartment and has Ferrets as Service Animals.
>Defined by law service animals are NOT pets and CAN NOT LEGALLY be
>denied admission to any public place, including "NO PETS ALLOWED"
>housing.
>
> http://www.jmls.edu/fairhousingcenter/Service-Animals.pdf

Actually, that's a little too broad reading of the law.

Legally, the question is whether the landlord has provided "reasonable
accomodation" for a disability. The federal law demands "reasonable
accomodation", but each state has the power to determine what they
consider "reasonable".

A court looks at four things to determine whether a landlord is in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities act:
1- a disabillity exists
2- the landlord knew of the disability
3- accomodation is necessary and the requested accomodation is
   reasonable
4- the landlord refused such accomodation.

The law does say that a service animal is reasonable accomodation. But
what is a service animal? In general, the courts have said that while a
landlord cannot insist on particular training, the service animal can
be required to demonstrate training or ability that distinguishes this
particular animal from a 'mere' pet.

From what has been said on the list, this ferret does have a
demonstrable ability. The owner may need to better document it by
getting affidavits that the ferret does, indeed have this ability -
and provide a note from a doctor explaining how the ferret's actions
(detecting onset and getting the owner to take preventative drugs) are
beneficial for her medical condition.

Such affidavits attesting to the abilities of these particular ferrets
may be useful. Polite letters to the judge, showing public opinion, may
be appropriate. But bombarding the judge with copies of the law and
stating that the judge is in violation of the law is apt to be
counter-productive.

The fact that her copy of the lease does not have the no-pets clause
is far more cut-and-dried. Contract law has hundreds of years of
precedents to call on. If her signed copy of the lease omits the pet
clause, and the standard contract contains it, that is prima facie
evidence that the clause was purposefully omitted. And if the clause
was added at a later date to the standard contract, it would not apply
to contracts executed earlier.

Also, the need for notifying the landlord about the service animal
is predicated on the landlord needing to waive a no-pets clause as
'reasonable accomodation'. The landlord in this case obviously knew of
a disability, since he allowed the remodeling that was necessary. It
sounds like he was not told of the need for a service animal. Howevere
if the contract did not have a no-pets clause, then no waiver is needed
and there is no need to document whether a particular animal is in fact
a service animal (which can be arguable).

If you know the lawyer, pass this on to him. This should be a far more
airtight argument than arguing whether the ferret is actually a service
animal.

-Claire Curtis

[Posted in FML 5940]