Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them – a new ADA and FHA webinar

April 25, 2019 By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA Miniature Horses, ADA service animals, Animals, FHA Emotional Support Animals Tags: ADA defense, Emotional Support Animals, FHA Defense, minature horses, service animals

Next Friday, May 3, I’m going to be presenting a webinar explaining how the FHA, ADA and ACAA treat animals of all kinds. Here’s the official link from the University of Texas School of Law CLE program.

Live from the UT CLE Studio on May 3, 2019 from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 1.00 hour CLE, $65

https://utcle.org/studio/ZAX19

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: What the ADA, FHA and Other Laws Say About Animals and Their Owners

With requests for accommodations for service animals and the like, learn how different laws cover such accommodations before referring your client to a specialist. This presentation outlines the ADA, FHA and the Air Carrier Access Actin in terms of the places covered by each. It discusses the difference between a “service animal” and every other kind of beast, and what the ADA vs. the FHA requires and what it permits in terms of verification of a need for the animal, and it also explores the rapidly developing law of what the ACAA requires and permits.

If you cannot watch the entire webcast at its scheduled time, register now and view the recorded eCourse when it is available in “Your Briefcase” after the webcast. Earn CLE credit (in TX and CA) on your time!

Reasonable accommodation requests – what can a landlord ask for?

November 7, 2018 By Richard Hunt in FHA, FHA definition of handicap, FHA Emotional Support Animals, Reasonable accommodation Tags: FHA Defense, FHA reasonable accommodation, FHA reliable evidence of handicap or disability

Top 10 Blog Posts - Texas Bar Today A client of mine was recently advised that the client’s FHA forms for reasonable accommodation requests were illegal because “The law specifically prohibits inquiry into the nature or extent of a disability.” This is a common misconception, and one that can easily result in an apartment complex full of supposed therapy animals owned by individuals who are not disabled. It is worth understanding where this misconception came from and what the law really allows. More

ADA and FHA Quick Hits – Labor Day edition.

August 31, 2018 By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA - drive-by litigation, ADA - serial litigation, ADA - Standing, ADA Attorney's Fees, ADA Mootness, Animals, FHA Emotional Support Animals Tags: ADA defense, ADA Internet, ADA website, FHA Defense, FHA Guidelines, Glueck v National Conference of Bar Examiners, Hillesheim v Holiday Stationstores, mootness, service animals, Wetzel v Glen St. Andrew

Summer is almost over, but before I put away my flip flops and seer sucker suit here’s a last look at what has been a very busy summer in the field of ADA and FHA litigation.

Landlord liability for tenant discrimination

Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, LLC, 2018 WL 4057365 (7th Cir. Aug. 27, 2018) is a critically important decision for landlords because it holds a landlord may be liable for its failure to restrain discriminatory conduct by tenants. The plaintiff is a lesbian who found herself the subject of a “torrent” of abuse from fellow tenants based on her sexual orientation that included both verbal and physical assaults. The rules of the apartment complex were similar to those of most apartments and permitted the landlord to take action against any tenant whose conduct was a threat to the health and safety of others or interfered with the peaceful use and enjoyment of the apartments. The plaintiff reported the abuse to management, who did nothing about it. In fact, they engaged in various kinds of conduct that essentially punished the plaintiff for complaining. When the plaintiff finally sued under the Fair Housing Act the landlord’s defense was that it could not be held liable for discrimination by other tenants. More

Pit Bulls and disability discrimination – the hard problem of FHA, ADA and ACAA policy

June 28, 2018 By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA service animals, Airlines, Animals, FHA Emotional Support Animals Tags: ADA defense, Air Carrier Access Act, Delta Airlines, Emotional Support Dogs, Pit Bulls, service dogs

Delta’s recent announcement that it was banning “pit bull type” dogs from its flights* has focused public attention on a long-standing problem in disability law; the inherent conflict between the need for easy to apply policies concerning service and emotional support animals and the prohibition in the law against basing decisions on stereotypes. You can ban any particular pit bull if there is good reason to believe it is dangerous, but you can’t ban all pit bulls just because it is a dangerous breed. More

Quick Hits for the ADA and FHA – World Cup edition

June 18, 2018 By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA - drive-by litigation, ADA - serial litigation, ADA Internet, ADA Internet Web, ADA Web Access, FHA, FHA Emotional Support Animals, FHA Reasonable Accommodation, Internet, Internet Accessibility, Reasonable accommodation, Rehabilitation Act Tags: ADA defense, ADA drive-by litigation, ADA Mootness, ADA website accessibility, FHA Defense, World Cup

Those of you who are not binge watching the World Cup matches will be interested in what has been going on in the world of disability rights during the last few weeks. Here is our roundup of recent ADA and FHA decisions, some of which are notable.

Indemnity and contribution for Fair Housing Act claims.

Shaw v. Cherokee Meadows, L.P. 2018 WL 2967708 (N.D.Okla. June 12, 2018) is another in a series of cases concerning indemnity for design/build defects under the FHA that gets it completely wrong and winds up with an absurd result. The decision has little in the way of discussion because it relies on the analysis from an earlier case, Equal Rights Center v. Niles Bolton Associates, 602 F.3d 597 (4th Cir. 2010). We’ve blogged on this issue before* but the arguments are worth repeating. Equal Rights Center based its analysis on earlier cases concerning race and similar kinds of intentional discrimination found that public policy precluded indemnity and contribution for FHA discrimination claims. In cases of intentional discrimination or respondeat superior it makes sense to forbid indemnity because you want to discourage bad intent and encourage proper supervision of employees. It doesn’t make any sense at all in design/build cases under Section 3104(f)(3)(C) because this is a “no fault” provision that can be violated without any intent to discriminate. Moreover, the owner of an apartment complex has no choice but to rely on 3rd party experts – architects and contractors – to properly design and build the apartments. When architects and contractors know that they are immune from liability for their failures they have no incentive to design and build according to FHA standards, and as a practical matter they are always immune because the first target in any lawsuit will be the owner. The Ninth Circuit has rejected Equal Rights Center for good reason, and if Shaw v. Cherokee Meadows is appealed the Tenth Circuit should reject it as well. More