Abuses Prejudice Cases Against Disabled Who Want Accommodation Pets
It is fair to point out that there have been abuses by those requesting accommodation animals and that such abuses have entered the “realm of contemporary literature, humor and satire.”
November 08, 2018 at 03:16 PM
3 minute read
In the co-op and condominium column entitled “Setting Standards and Requirements For Therapy Dogs, Emotional Support Animals” (Nov. 7), Eva Talel rightly points out that there can be abuses of the laws that protect the disabled from unlawful discrimination. While it is true that there are no clear standards for what Ms. Talel refers to as certificates for accommodation animals, it is also true that a certificate for an emotional support animal is simply not required.
However, in order for a disabled person to prevail under the federal, state and New York City laws, all of which prohibit discrimination against the disabled, a showing must be made both that the person is disabled, as well as that the accommodation animal is medically helpful. Co-ops and condominiums are not left without protection inasmuch as they have a right to request documentation supporting these claims.
It is fair to point out that there have been abuses and that such abuses have entered the “realm of contemporary literature, humor and satire.” But it must also be said that these abuses have unfairly been used to prejudice the rights of people who are disabled and indeed in need of an accommodation animal. It cannot be refuted that the medical literature strongly supports the benefits of accommodation animals. It also cannot be disputed that an accommodation animal has to be a reasonable accommodation so that it cannot be an animal that will be a nuisance to other co-op or condo unit owners.
We represent many people requesting accommodation animals. It is all too often that there are misunderstandings between boards and unit owners and these misunderstandings interfere with recognizing the rights of the disabled. It is understandable that a board might be wary of a disabled person's rights given the abuses discussed by Ms. Talel, as well as the fact that very often unit owners are not aware of their rights and therefore do not assert them until a board questions their right to have their accommodation animal. On the other hand, boards very often do not understand the laws that protect the disabled and simply think that any of the building's prohibitions of the right to have animals just override a person's right to be protected from discrimination. Boards must understand that they cannot simply reject a request for an accommodation by saying that they just don't allow accommodation animals regardless of someone's disability and need.
In sum, abuses on both sides of these matters should be curbed for the benefit of all.
Darryl M. Vernon is the name partner at Vernon & Ginsburg.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRepealing Fault Grounds for Divorce Would Have Little Effect on NY Matrimonial Law
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1OIG Progress Puts Connecticut in Leadership Position
- 2Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 3Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 4Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
- 5'Big Law Had Become Too Woke': Why Bill Barr Moved On
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250