What Are Emotional Support Animals?
As more and more individuals grapple with the effects of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and other mental health issues, one common approach to easing symptoms is the acquisition of a support animal. These don’t need to be the "service animals" or "therapy dogs" commonly understood in society. The definition of an emotional support animal is a creature that provides comfort and security to its owner. An emotional support animal can be a cat, dog, hamster, bird, even a goat. The key component is that the animal is part of the journey to improving mental health.
As a comfort to individual who may be suffering from PTSD, depression, or other disorders, the presence of an emotional support animal can be invaluable. For example, it’s not uncommon for PTSD sufferers of war , to experience flashbacks. These episodes can intimidate or mortify those around them. The ability to have an animal that will follow and provide comfort in such times can make all the difference in the world. Emotional support animals are also helpful for people with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); people with autism and the socially withdrawn; folks with obsessive-compulsive disorder; and those suffering from depression. Emotional support animals can ease mental health symptoms, while empowering individuals to increase confidence, face fears, and join social situations.
Although there are some similarities between emotional support animals and service animals, the latter must perform specific tasks or work to benefit an individual with a disability. The purpose and function of these two types of support animals is different. An emotional support animal provides relief to an individual by being present, while a service animal must take action to assist its owner in a tangible way – such as alerting to sound or blocking harmful situations.
Minnesota Emotional Support Animal Housing Rights
Emotional support animals in Minnesota have specific rights when it comes to housing. The Federal Fair Housing Act provides significant protections to people with disabilities who reside in multifamily housing-i.e., housing with four or more units. These rights include a requirement that landlords make a reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, including their right to have an emotional support animal in their unit.
Unlike the ADA, the Fair Housing Act does not contain a specific prohibition against breed discrimination, but any breed ban that is imposed must be done so under the auspices of a state or local law that is not in conflict with the Fair Housing Act. Most emotional support animals in Minnesota are dogs. Minnesota does not have any breed-specific rules or regulations that are applicable to emotional support dogs. If a housing provider has an across-the-board ban on specific dog breeds, this can often be proved to be a violation of the Fair Housing Act.
The Fair Housing Act only applies to housing that is exempt from the ADA. As a practical matter, in addition to the federal Fair Housing Act, emotional support animals in Minnesota are also granted the same protections against housing discrimination as service animals. Minnesota does not have any state laws protecting emotional support animals in housing. Because of this, a vast majority of emotional support animals are granted reasonable accommodations based on the federal Fair Housing Act.
In contrast to the ADA, the Fair Housing Act covers all types of housing with four or more units, whether a single or multiple-story building, regardless of how many floors there are. The Fair Housing Act also covers common-use facilities, such as a community swimming pool or clubhouse. The Fair Housing Act affords the same rights and protections to assistive animals in housing as the ADA does to service animals in places of public accommodation.
The Fair Housing Act requires housing providers to allow their tenants a reasonable accommodation-i.e., an exception or a waiver-to any policy, procedure, rule, and/or practice that acts as a barrier to persons with disabilities, including emotional support animals in Minnesota.
Accommodation Requirements for Emotional Support Animals
Emotional support animals are considered a reasonable accommodation under Minnesota law if the resident submits a request. In most places, a resident is expected to submit documentation that establishes the nexus between their disability and the assistance they will receive from the accompanying animal (a.k.a emotional support animal). In Minnesota, HUD rules say that "handicapped persons" are entitled to "reasonable accommodations", such as emotional support animals.
Minnesota law does not strictly define the type of documentation necessary for residents to obtain emotional support animal accommodation. But to get approved, a person with a disability must prove the need while providing minimal evidence, such as a letter from a doctor or therapist. Further, housing providers in Minnesota aren’t allowed to demand specific documents or certifications, such as pet registration, during the request process.
Any source of verification is fine if it suggests the following: Beyond these guidelines, the source of the documentation doesn’t matter. Guidance from HUD even refers to the example of the "Tenant Next Door" approach. This means that if the tenant next door of the resident requesting accommodation has a very similar disability and a similar need for an emotional support animal, they are deemed adequate proof that the requesting tenant’s need is legitimate.
Landlord Responsibilities and Restrictions
It is not a violation of fair housing laws to deny a request for a reasonable accommodation for a tenant with an emotional support animal if the following apply:
• The person does not provide sufficient information to substantiate the disability or disability-related need
• The requested accommodation poses an undue administrative or financial burden
• The requested accommodation would impose a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be mitigated
Specific exceptions described by the FHA that allow housing providers to deny a request for an emotional support animal include the following:
• If an owner is expecting a new owner in the property who has allergies, they may deny an emotional support animal accommodation because the request would interfere with the rights of other individuals who have disabilities
• If the animal would cause damage to the property
• If the animal would not comply with local laws concerning animals
• If the animal poses a direct threat of physical harm
• If a companion or therapy animal would not be permitted at all, regardless of whether or not it assists in alleviating a disability-related symptom, provided that this prohibition is consistent for all animals.
Responsibilities of a Tenant with an Emotional Support Animal
While housing providers are required to engage in the interactive process with an individual in need of a reasonable accommodation, this does not negate the tenant’s responsibility to control their animal and ensure that it does not cause damage or should not otherwise be permitted . For example, courts routinely uphold termination of a lease in situations where the tenant’s ESA is destroying property or is otherwise a nuisance.
Common Issues & Legal Solutions
In addition to more traditional housing discrimination concepts, cases involving emotional support animals regularly raise issues of the equal opportunity requirements of the FHA, the handicapped status of a party under that statute, the reasonable accommodation analysis of the FHA, and the interplay with state law. These issues can cause disputes between landlords and tenants, with tenants alleging discrimination and failing to provide the necessary documents to obtain an ESA.
Courts tend to analyze ESA disputes under the FHA. For example, in Belline v BNSF Railway Company, 2003 WL 22384769, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 21529 (D. Minn. 2003), Jennifer Belline, an employee of the BNSF Railway Company, requested a reasonable accommodation from her employer for the presence of an emotional support animal in the workplace. She claimed to be "handicapped" within the meaning of the FMLA and ADA because she suffered from depression, PTSD, severe night terrors and related clinically impairable anxiety. The Court explained that two principles govern the scope of the FHA: the anti-discrimination principle and the requirement of an individualized assessment of each request for a reasonable accommodation. The Court further explained that the equitable relief available under the FHA is broad and largely left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court in Belline held that applying the principles above; it was appropriate to order the defendant to allow the plaintiff’s use of an ESA to the same extent as a service animal.
In Salgian v. Carlson 2009 WL 3648232 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2009), a tenant with Type-1 diabetes was allowed by her landlord to bring a cat into her apartment as an ESA. By subsequent way of marriage and divorce of the former tenant, the tenants in possession of the apartment were her former husband and his mother. They recently brought another cat into the apartment, making it dangerous for the diabetic tenant to be near the animals. The diabetic tenant sought injunctive relief and monetary damages against her landlord claiming that his conduct violated the provisions of the FHA by, among other things, failing to make a reasonable accommodation. The trial court declined to issue injunctive relief against the landlord, holding that it would create an undue burden for the landlord, and denied monetary damages holding that the tenants failed to establish any actual injury or damages caused by the landlord. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upholding the trial court’s rulings stated that the landlord did not violate the FHA by granting permission to the diabetic tenant’s cat but not granting permission for a second cat. The Court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award statutory damages under the FHA. Finally, the Court found that the trial court’s failure to find undue burden on the apartment association was not an abuse of discretion.
Minn. Stat. § 504B.185, subd. 1, provides that a person with a disability is allowed to pet access housing accommodations with a dog, cat or other household pet unless property concerns are made. Minn. Stat. § 504B.185 defines "disability" as follows:
For the purposes of this section, a person with a disability means a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, includes being regarded as having such an impairment, and does:
One action a tenant can take if his or her landlord violates their rights under the FHA or Minn. Stat. § 504B.185 and refuses to accommodate their disability is to file a complaint with HUD and or commence a lawsuit.
The Latest on Minnesota ESA Law
Recent Developments in Emotional Support Animal Laws in Minnesota
Despite Minnesota being a relatively newer ESA state, there has already been substantial litigation regarding the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA").
In April 2017, the City of Eagan, Minnesota – through its Housing & Redevelopment Authority – filed a lawsuit against Eagan investors for failure to accommodate a support animal at an apartment complex. See Rochester Apartments LLC and Counterpoint Realty Partners LLC v. City of Eagan, Minnesota, located in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Case No. 0:17-cv-00826-DWF-BRT. The building was built in 1963 into six, 2-story buildings containing 72 units. The city purchased the apartment complex in August 2014, and in December 2016 receive a written request for an ESA.
In this case, the city is basing its request on the MHRA, which prohibits discrimination and requires reasonable accommodation of any person with a disability, as well as HUD’s Fair Housing Act Guidelines ("FHA Guidelines"). In response to the request, the housing authority provided a copy of a HUD publication entitled "Service Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities." This publication does not constitute HUD’s official position on service or assistance animals. It is only one of many references available on this topic, including the FHA Guidelines.
HUD’s publication provides that an assistance animal is any animal that provides emotional support and/or alleviates some of the symptoms of a person’s disability, including a lack of sufficient functioning relating to mental health conditions. This can be fulfilled by having a companion dog or cat, or even a mouse, rabbit, or a bird such as a parakeet. The FHA Guidelines further provide that an assistance animal is not a pet but rather a companion for an individual with a disability. Under the MHRA there is no limit to the number or type of assistance animals they may keep; however, this is dependent on the facts of each case. Also, under the MHRA, housing providers may verify that the assistance animal qualifies as a reasonable accommodation.
There are two recent cases involving American with Disabilities Act ("ADA") issues and ESAs. In a U.S. District Court case in Wisconsin, A.R. v. City of Milwaukee, No. 2:15-cv-00513 (E.D. Wis. August 16, 2016) the case dealt with a rare ESA situation. A minor child was diagnosed with PTSD and depression and had previously asked that an emotional support dog be permitted. After a thorough analysis, the school district granted the minor child permission to have an ESA if the minor handled the dog, if parents supervised, if there was no disruption, and if the dog was removed when directed to do so. This case is an excellent example of the importance of individual analysis and environmental assessments when determining whether an ESA accommodation is reasonable.
The second case is directly out of Minnesota – Eagle v. Morgan, No. 12-cv-02570 (D.MN September 15, 2016). The Eagle case has an interesting history. An individual applied to a special common interest community situated on a lake for housing. In this case, the individual submitted a support animal’s paperwork and his landlord was very familiar with emotional support animals. However, after a review, the approval was signed by the property owner rather than the governing board of the community. Of further interest is that the new owner of the property at issue was a different limited liability company. The new company was notified within approximately a month of the contract regarding the tenant’s ESA, but did not respond within a 30 day period as was required by the CC&R (covenants, conditions and restrictions) for reviewing tenants and ESAs.
MN ESA Housing Law FAQ
Do I need a note from my doctor to have an emotional support animal?
No, you do not need a doctors note. In fact, there is no state or federal law requiring a doctor’s note as proof.
Can my dog be a certified ESA in Minnesota?
Minnesota does not recognize certification or licensing for emotional support animals as valid. Instead, any animal can be termed an emotional support animal (ESA) if the animal mitigates a symptom or effect of a disability.
Can I get an emotional support animal certification online in Minnesota?
No. Minnesota does not recognize emotional support animal certifications as valid. Instead, a doctor’s note stating that the animal brings comfort to the disabled person will suffice as proof of a need for an ESA.
Do ESA’s pay rent?
ESA’s do not pay rent, but they are considered part of the household for income purposes , so no adjustment of rent is required.
Can a landlord evict an emotional support animal?
Yes. As long as an emotional support animal violates a lease term or poses a threat to health or safety of residents, landlords may evict an ESA from a property.
Are ESAs and service animals the same thing?
No. An ESA is not a service animal. Service animals can be defined as dogs only under ADA law, while emotional support animals can be any animal, such as dogs, cats, birds, and others. In addition, service animals go through extensive training to serve a specific purpose, while emotional support animals do not require any special training.
Do I need a specific breed for emotional support?
No, any breed is acceptable if it provides comfort or support to its owner.
Does Minnesota have a leash law for emotional support animals?
Yes. Like with regular pets, Minnesota leash laws apply to emotional support animals while they are in public spaces.