May 2010 Coach's Quiz

We have given you eight rules on when it's appropriate to make exceptions to community rules and policies under fair housing claims. Now let's look at how the rules might apply in the real world. Take the COACH's Quiz to see what you have learned.

INSTRUCTIONS: Each of the following questions has only one correct answer. On a separate piece of paper, write down the number of each question, followed by the answer you think is correct—for example, 1)b, 2)a, and so on.

And this month, there's an extra credit assignment: Judge for Yourself, a description of an actual court case. Test yourself on whether you think the community should be held liable, and then check the summary of the court's ruling to see how much you have learned. The correct answers (with explanations) follow the quiz. Good luck!

QUESTION #1

You may have to make an exception to your policies regarding unassigned parking even if a resident doesn't appear to be disabled. True or false?

1. True

2. False.

QUESTION #2

You can reject a request from a resident who asks for an exception to your no-pets policy so she can keep a parrot in her unit as an emotional support animal. True or false?

1. True

2. False.

QUESTION #3

Before granting an exception to rules banning motorized vehicles to a resident who uses a motorized wheelchair for a mobility impairment, you can require him to pay an extra deposit to offset any property damage he may cause while using the device.

1. True

2. False.

EXTRA CREDIT: JUDGE FOR YOURSELF

A community has a rule prohibiting residents from keeping domestic pets on the premises. When a resident has periodic visits from the dog owned by his former wife, the community takes legal action against the resident. In response, the resident admits that he is not seeking a reasonable accommodation to keep the dog, but indicates that he “will claim the need for an accommodation” in case the court rules against him. Eventually, the court rules that he can't keep the dog in his unit; in addition, the court says the community need not honor a future request from the resident for an accommodation under fair housing law unless there was a significant change in his health or disability status. That lawsuit was ultimately upheld on appeal.

Meanwhile, the resident filed a request for a reasonable accommodation, claiming that the dog was an “assistive therapeutic companion animal.” Since the medical documentation accompanying the request was dated before the court order, the community denied the request. He made two more requests, but because he submitted the same paperwork, the community denied them again.

The resident sued the community under fair housing law. He then made a fourth request for a reasonable accommodation, this time with updated, though identical statements from two doctors that he needed to have the dog as an assistance animal and that there had been a significant change in his health. The community responded by asking for more information from his health-care providers about his disability and the relationship between his disability and his need for the animal.

The resident refused to turn over the requested information unless the community agreed to meet certain conditions, including keeping the information strictly confidential, maintaining a record of anyone who reviewed the information, and sending it to the resident every 30 days. The community assured him that the information would be kept confidential, but refused to accept the resident's conditions. He did not respond further.

At the community's request, the court dismissed the lawsuit and, finding that his case was frivolous, ordered the resident to pay more than $22,000 in costs and attorney's fees.

On appeal by the resident, how did the court rule?