For individuals relying on an Emotional Support Animal (ESA) for their mental or emotional well-being, finding suitable housing can be a significant challenge. Many housing communities, especially apartments, condos, and those governed by Homeowners Associations (HOAs), have strict “no-pet” policies or specific breed, size, or weight restrictions. This often leads to a common misconception: that certain dog breeds, particularly those labeled as “aggressive” or “dangerous,” are automatically excluded from being an ESA.
However, when it comes to housing, the reality of ESA breed restrictions is a complex interplay of federal law, reasonable accommodation, and very specific limitations on a housing provider’s ability to deny an assistance animal. Understanding the distinction between myth and fact in this area is crucial for both ESA handlers and housing providers to ensure compliance with the law and avoid discrimination.
The Foundation: Fair Housing Act and Reasonable Accommodation
The bedrock of ESA rights in housing is the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). This act prohibits discrimination in housing based on several protected characteristics, including disability. Under the FHA, housing providers (which include landlords, property management companies, and HOAs) must make reasonable accommodations to their rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations are necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
-
Assistance Animals, Not Pets: The FHA considers Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) as “assistance animals,” not pets. This is a critical distinction. Because they are not pets, ESAs are generally exempt from typical pet policies, including pet fees, pet deposits, and, most importantly, breed, size, or weight restrictions.
-
Necessity for Equal Opportunity: The core principle is that the ESA must be necessary for the individual with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their housing. This necessity is typically established by a legitimate letter from a licensed mental health professional (LMHP) confirming the disability and the animal’s role in alleviating symptoms.
Myth vs. Fact: Addressing Common Misconceptions
Let’s break down some of the most pervasive myths surrounding ESA breed restrictions in housing:
Myth 1: Housing providers can deny an ESA based solely on its breed (e.g., Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds).
-
Fact: This is false. Under the FHA and guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), housing providers cannot enforce breed, size, or weight restrictions on legitimate Emotional Support Animals. The focus is on the individual animal’s behavior, not its breed. A blanket ban based on breed is discriminatory.
-
HUD Guidance: HUD has explicitly stated that breed, size, and weight limitations may not be applied to an assistance animal. The rationale is that such restrictions are often based on generalizations or stereotypes rather than objective evidence about the specific animal’s actual conduct. (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2020)
Myth 2: If a housing provider’s insurance company has breed restrictions, they can deny the ESA.
- Fact: This is a complex area, but generally, no. While insurance policies may indeed have breed restrictions, HUD guidance indicates that this alone is typically not a valid reason to deny a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal. Housing providers are expected to work with their insurance providers to accommodate assistance animals. If an insurance company’s refusal to cover a specific breed creates an undue financial and administrative burden, it might potentially be a factor in a denial, but this is a high bar to meet and must be proven with objective evidence, not just a blanket statement from the insurer. In many cases, insurance companies make exceptions for assistance animals.
Myth 3: The ESA must have special training to bypass breed restrictions.
- Fact: This is false. Unlike service animals (including Psychiatric Service Dogs or PSDs), ESAs are not required to have specific task training. Their therapeutic benefit comes from their presence and companionship. Therefore, training certificates or proof of specialized training are not legally required to bypass breed restrictions for an ESA in housing. While a well-behaved animal is always preferred, its “training” beyond basic obedience is not a legal criterion for ESA status.
Myth 4: If an ESA is a large or “strong” breed, it automatically poses a “direct threat.”
-
Fact: This is false. A housing provider cannot assume an animal poses a “direct threat” based solely on its breed or perceived strength. Any determination that a specific animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others must be based on:Myth 4: If an ESA is a large or “strong” breed, it automatically poses a “direct threat.”
- Individualized Assessment: The assessment must be specific to the particular animal in question, not generalizations about the breed.
- Objective Evidence: There must be reliable, objective evidence of the animal’s actual behavior that indicates a significant risk (e.g., a history of unprovoked aggression, documented bites, property damage).
- Unmitigable Threat: The threat cannot be eliminated or significantly reduced by another reasonable accommodation (e.g., leash use, muzzle in common areas if warranted, additional training).
A housing provider must have concrete, recent, and verifiable evidence of aggressive behavior or uncontrolled destruction caused by that specific animal to justify a denial based on direct threat. Fear or stereotypes about a breed are insufficient.
Myth 5: Landlords can charge pet fees or deposits for an ESA, regardless of breed.
- Fact: False. Because an ESA is considered an assistance animal and not a pet under the FHA, housing providers cannot charge pet fees, pet deposits, or additional pet rent for an ESA, regardless of its breed. However, the tenant is still responsible for any actual damages caused by the ESA to the property.
What Constitutes a Legitimate Denial?
While breed restrictions are generally unenforceable for ESAs, there are specific, limited circumstances under which a housing provider can legally deny an ESA request:
-
Lack of a Disability-Related Need: If there’s no verifiable disability as defined by the FHA, or no clear nexus between the disability and the need for the animal. This is where a legitimate ESA letter from a licensed mental health professional is crucial.
-
Undue Financial or Administrative Burden: If accommodating the animal would impose an unreasonable burden on the housing provider (a very high legal bar to meet).
-
Fundamental Alteration: If accommodating the animal would fundamentally alter the nature of the housing provider’s operations.
-
Direct Threat: As discussed above, if the specific animal (not its breed) poses a documented, individualized, and unmitigable direct threat to the health or safety of others, or would cause substantial physical damage to property. This must be based on objective evidence of the animal’s actual behavior.
-
Animal Not Under Control: If the assistance animal is not under the control of the handler or is not house-trained, the housing provider can address these behavioral issues. If the issues persist despite reasonable efforts to correct them, this could potentially lead to a denial or revocation of accommodation.
Protecting Your Rights
If you have a legitimate ESA and encounter a housing provider attempting to deny your accommodation based on breed restrictions or other unlawful reasons:
-
Understand Your Rights: Familiarize yourself with HUD’s guidance on assistance animals under the FHA.
-
Provide Proper Documentation: Ensure your ESA letter is legitimate, current, and from a licensed mental health professional.
-
Communicate Clearly: Inform the housing provider, preferably in writing, that your animal is an ESA and is protected under the FHA, which supersedes breed restrictions. Reference HUD guidance if necessary.
-
Seek Advocacy: If the denial persists, consider filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or consulting with a fair housing attorney.
The laws surrounding Emotional Support Animals in housing are designed to prevent discrimination against individuals with disabilities. This means that arbitrary breed restrictions, based on stereotypes rather than individualized assessments of an animal’s behavior, are generally not permissible. By understanding these legal protections, both ESA handlers and housing providers can navigate the process fairly and ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal opportunities to enjoy their homes with their supportive animal companions.
References
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2020, January 28). Assessing a person’s request to have an animal as a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. FHEO-2020-01. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/HUD_Guidance_on_ESA_01-28-2020.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice. (2015, July 20). Service animals and the ADA. https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-2015-fact-sheet/
