Issue
In Woods v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission (— Cal. Rptr. 3d —, 2004 WL 1888284, 4 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8188, Cal.App. 3 Dist., Aug. 25, 2004), the California Court of Appeal considered the issue of whether, under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, a "companion dog" was a reasonable accommodation for disabled homeowners.
Facts
After buying a condominium in the Auburn Woods Condominium Development, Jayne and Abdelfatah "Ed"¨ Elebiari (Residents) sought permission from the Auburn Woods I Homeowners Association to keep a small dog in their condominium. They each claimed that keeping the dog alleviated their conditions of depression. Because having a dog on the premises was specifically forbidden by the covenants, conditions, and restrictions in force at Auburn Woods, the Homeowners Association denied their request. Residents filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. After a hearing, the Fair Employment and Housing Commission determined that Residents were both disabled, allowing them to keep a small dog in their condominium would have been a reasonable accommodation, and denying their request constituted unlawful discrimination. Upon the request of the Homeowners Association, the trial court reversed the Commission’s decision. Residents appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
Homeowners Association argued Residents failed to prove their case because they did not show that Homeowners Association knew of the disability, and that the accommodation was necessary to afford them equal opportunity to use and enjoy their dwelling. The Court of Appeal determined that Residents presented substantial evidence:
- Homeowners Association knew Residents were disabled. Shortly after obtaining the dog, Residents requested permission from Homeowners Association to keep it. They provided Homeowners Association with letters from a physician who stated that Residents’ emotional well-being improved after purchasing the dog and recommended they be allowed to keep the dog. Homeowners Association never requested further medical information to verify Residents’ claims.
- Having a dog improved Residents’ ability to use and enjoy their home. Residents presented medical evidence that having a dog alleviated their symptoms of depression: it forced Ed to go outside of his home – something he otherwise had difficulty doing – and gave him a brighter affect and made him more sociable; Jayne no longer sat around the house brooding, because she focused her attention on the dog. The Court emphasized that, while companion pets will not always be a reasonable accommodation, they may be under the right circumstances.
The Court thus concluded that the "FEHC’s decision that a companion dog in this case constituted a reasonable accommodation for the [Residents’] disabilities was supported by substantial evidence, and the trial court erred in reaching a contrary conclusion."
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.