Names changed for privacy. Photo not that of the client
“Sally,” a highly decorated Gulf War combat veteran, suffers from a severe psychological impairment due to her time in combat. Her adult son “James” purchased a dog for his mother named “Sweetie” hoping that having him would help his mother mitigate the effects of her psychological disability. James had a dog of his own already. After meeting Sweetie, he decided that he liked the breed so much that he got another dog, the same breed as Sweetie, named Sugar. Several month later, Sally separated from her husband and moved in with James. Because of a two-pet rule of his condominium association, Sally had no choice but to give her dog to her adult daughter.
Months later, James was walking Sugar, and an incident occurred with Sugar and a neighbor. What transpired is not clear, but James was not cited for the incident. Nonetheless, he rehomed his dog rather than get into a contentious dispute with his condominium association. Since James no longer had his dog, Sally’s dog came to live with them under the association’s two-pet rule. Around the same time, Sally’s treating psychologist prescribed Sweetie as an emotional support animal to assist in mitigating the effects of her disability. Sally attempted to provide the doctor’s letter to the Board, but it refused the letter.
From that time forward Sally and James were subjected to a vicious campaign of unlawful fabrication, intimidation, and harassment by the condominium association Board and specifically someone called the “Board Enforcer” on behalf of the Board. The “Enforcer” had the misguided and unsupported belief that Sweetie was really Sugar and sent James and the other board members countless emails repeatedly impugning James and Sally’s character, accusing them of lying about rehoming Sugar despite being provided documentation in support, threatening baseless legal action, making personal attacks on Sally’s medical need for an emotional support animal and on her years of military service to the country. The Board attached illegal fines and fees to James’s condominium association dues account for having an “unauthorized dog.” The Board published meeting agendas throughout the community disclosing personal information about Sally and her disability.
At this point, Fair Housing Unit Staff Attorney Suzanne Garrow got involved. She requested a reasonable accommodation to stop the campaign of harassment and to allow Sally full use and enjoyment of her home. She explained that James had rights under the Fair Housing Act to support his mother, a person with a disability. She further requested that the unlawful fines, fees, interest, and any other charges levied against James relating to an alleged unauthorized dog on the property be removed, and that James be correctly credited on his condominium association dues.
After receiving a negative response from the “Enforcer,” Garrow prepared a preliminary injunction to file in the federal district court. Just prior to filing, James received an email that had been sent to all condominium owners telling them that the “Enforcer” and most of the Board were no longer in control of the Board due to their bad acts. He then learned that the fees and fines would be removed from his account and that he, his mother, and Sweetie could live in their community free from harassment from then on. Since then, they have been peacefully and stably housed.
