May 27th, 2008 | Dog survey

The US Justice Department successfully sued a landlord who refused to bend on his "No Pets" policy and accomodate a disabled woman's daughter who needed the service dog. Was the ruling correct?


The US Justice Department won a case under the "Fair Housing Act" by claiming the dog in question was a service dog needed by the woman's daughter.




41 votes, 163 views , 5 comments
 
 
Poll tags:Dog, Lawsuit, Justice Department

 
Add your comment
Update your status line


Comments (5)
Frecklesrsexy
(Reply)
Ohio, United States

posted May 28th, 2008 at 11:15 CDT

i don't know if this would have changed my vote or not but you didn't have all the info to base a decision. Landlord Settles Over No-Pets Policy WINDSOR LOCKS, Conn. (AP) - The U.S. Justice Department says a Windsor Locks landlord has agreed to pay $115,000 to settle allegations that he violated housing laws by trying to evict a woman whose disabled daughter needed a service dog.Mahmoud M. Hussein will pay $102,000 to compensate the woman and her daughter, plus $13,000 in attorney fees, under a settlement announced Tuesday.Hussein's attorney, David Crotta, declined comment.Authorities say he violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to make reasonable accommodations to his no-pets policy for the tenants, whose dog helped the daughter with her cerebral palsy, seizure disorder and depression.The tenants claimed in a federal lawsuit that Hussein also retaliated by refusing to renew their lease and starting evictionproceedings.Feder al law prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familystatus.               (Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press.  All Rights Reserved.)

Officeshrew
(Reply)
Alabama, United States

posted May 28th, 2008 at 11:12 CDT

the disabled can not be discriminated against...it is the law...

Drowlord
(Reply)
Texas, United States

posted May 27th, 2008 at 20:11 CDT

I think the laws on service animals are well established.  Nice try for the landlord; I can understand his issue, though.

Gigglybritches
(Reply)
Texas, United States

posted May 27th, 2008 at 19:31 CDT

The building is his investment. Animals can damage that property just by being there. The place will smell like large dog. He has a right to protect his investment. He isn't a charity.  He isn't discriminating. There are plenty of places that allow pets.  The government has no moral right to intrude that deeply into a business relationship.

Scotkitty
(Reply)
Arizona, United States

posted May 27th, 2008 at 15:41 CDT

Even at cat shows, where no dogs are allowed for obvious reasons, there is a clause for Service Animals which are allowed into the show hall.  These dogs are so well trained it's like they aren't even there.  They provide a much needed service.

 
Log in using your:

* Username
* Email address
* Password
 
Buddy icon
* Gender
     
* Birth date
Country
City
 (your vote will still count)
Embed Flash Widget
Embed Java Script Widget
Copy & paste the embed code to your site.