Canada Emotional support animals are not considered service animals and are not protected under Canadian law. Airlines operating in Canada may voluntarily allow passengers to bring emotional support animals on board, but without the legal protections extended to passengers with service animals. For example, before allowing an emotional support animal to board, an airline may require documentation from a licensed
mental health professional stating that the animal is necessary for the individual's emotional support.
United Kingdom There is no official legal recognition or public access rights for emotional support animals in the United Kingdom. Although not legally required, the
University of Winchester has an Assistance and Emotional Support Animal Policy that may provide exceptions to its no-pet policy for some assistance and emotional support animals. However, it is of note that most UK universities still prohibit and do not provide accommodations for emotional support animals.
United States To qualify for an emotional support animal in the US, its owner must have an
emotional or mental disability that is certified by a mental health professional such as a
psychiatrist,
psychologist, or other licensed mental
health care provider. These may be
invisible disabilities. The owner's mental health impairment must be substantial enough to produce
disability, rather than discomfort or a desire to have a pet. The professional who issues an ESA letter need not be the recipient's
primary care physician, and some doctors may refer patients who are seeking an ESA to psychologists or other professionals.
Air travel As of January 2021, airlines are not required to allow passengers to travel with ESAs, and they may treat ESAs as pets.
Multiple ESAs Although the issue has not been addressed by the courts, a person's request for accommodation of multiple ESAs would follow the same legal framework as any other request. Thus, if a person with a disability claims a need for multiple emotional support animals, that person will need documentation supporting this claim from their psychologist or other licensed healthcare professional. The practitioner will need to provide documentation that each support animal alleviates some symptom of the disability. These statutes, and the corresponding case law, create the general rule that a landlord cannot discriminate against people with mental disabilities in housing, and if a
reasonable accommodation will enable a person living with a disability to equally enjoy and use the rental unit, the landlord must provide the accommodation. Persons with disabilities may request a reasonable accommodation, such as a waiver of a "no pets policy", for any assistance animal, including an emotional support animal, under both the Fair Housing Act and
Section 504.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act was enacted in 1973 and made broad and sweeping statements that
discrimination against the disabled in any program receiving federal financial assistance was illegal. However, it was not until 1988 when the
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) created regulations under the statute. Section 504 states: In the context of
housing discrimination, this
statute creates the rule that
public housing authorities cannot deny housing to a person with a disability solely because of his or her disability, and that if a reasonable accommodation can be made to make housing available to a person with a disability, the landlord is required to make the accommodation. However, several courts have held that a tenant requesting an emotional support animal as a reasonable accommodation must demonstrate a relationship between his or her ability to function and the companionship of the animal. This required nexus between the disability and the emotional support animal has been refined by several courts. For instance, in
Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp (N.D. Ca., 2000), the US Northern
District Court of California held the reasonable accommodation is a fact-based, and not species-based, issue. In
Nason v. Stone Hill Realty Association (1996), a Massachusetts trial court recognized that there were more reasonable accommodations to lessen the effects of a person's disability, other than keeping an emotional support animal, and therefore denied the tenant's motion for
preliminary injunction. Courts have held the emotional distress expected to occur if a person is forced to give up his or her emotional support animal will not support a reasonable accommodation claim.The FHAA states that it is unlawful "to discriminate in the sale or rental ... of a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of that buyer or renter, a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available, or any person associated with that buyer or renter." Further, it is discrimination for any person to: "refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a handicapped person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit, including public and common use areas." Thus, like Section 504, the FHAA requires landlords to make reasonable accommodations for tenants. Additionally, the FHAA, in section 3602(h) defines handicap, with respect to a person, as: • a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities; • a record of having such an impairment; or • being regarded as having such an impairment. The term "major life activities" has been interpreted broadly to include those "activities that are of central importance to daily life," such as "seeing, hearing, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one's self, learning, speaking, and reproducing." To establish a
prima facie case of housing discrimination under the FHAA: the tenant must have a qualifying disability, the landlord knew of the handicap or should reasonably be expected to know of it, accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the tenant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, and the landlord must deny the request, such as refusing to waive the "no pets" policy. where the court has said it is not a violation of Fair Housing rules for a landlord to require an assistance animal to have some form of training. Landlords may be concerned that waiving a "no pet" policy for one tenant will inspire many others to claim mental illnesses and the need for emotional support animals. Landlords may believe that as more tenants have animals on the property, odors and noises from the animals may deter other tenants from renting and thus lower the value of the rental property. However, if a tenant documents the need for an emotional support animal under the Fair Housing act or state law, and the landlord is not exempt from those laws, the landlord must allow the tenant to possess an emotional support animal. The FHA does not have a conclusive definition of what type of animal an assistance or companion animal must be, plus the animal does not need to be trained to perform any specific task to be considered an emotional support or companion animal. This means dogs, cats, birds, and other types of companion animals can be considered use for emotional support.
Pet deposits The US Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Justice have held that "providers may not require persons with disabilities to pay extra fees or
deposits as a condition of receiving a reasonable accommodation." In 1990, a HUD administrative judge enjoined owners of an apartment complex from charging a person with a disability a pet deposit fee. The judge held that an auxiliary aid, like a service, guide, or signal dog, may be necessary to afford the individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling unit, including public and common areas. A landlord may charge a tenant for damage caused to a rental property by the tenant's emotional support animal, and may deduct the cost of repairs from the tenant's
security deposit, but may not increase the security deposit based upon the tenant's possession of an emotional support animal.
Exceptions Exceptions may apply to a landlord's obligation to allow a tenant to possess an emotional support animal. For example, owner-occupied buildings with four or fewer rental units are exempt from the federal Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act also exempts private owners of single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, as long as the owner does not own more than three single-family homes, as well as housing operated by organizations and private clubs that restrict occupancy to members. As an example of compliance, California Polytechnic State University permits emotional support animals in on-campus housing following verification of eligibility. Verification involves submitting an accommodation request for review, a written request for an accommodation, and sufficient documentation from the applicant's treating licensed medical professional. Emotional support animals are not generally permitted in other campus facilities. While a number of institutions traditionally held a "no pets" policy, students with ESAs assert that an animal provides them therapeutic benefit. Some professors have expressed concern that animals in classrooms and academic settings will cause classroom distraction. However, the ADA only extends these protections to dogs that have been "individually trained" to "perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability," which is the definition of service animals under 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. The lack of training for emotional support animals has led to litigation. For example, there is controversy over whether the ADA definition of service animal, with its requirement of training, applies to reasonable accommodation claims for animals under the FHAA. However, HUD administrative judges have ruled in favor of emotional support animals, despite their lack of training, as being reasonable accommodations.
State law In some US states, providing a letter, registry, or certificate to a person who is not disabled is a crime. Many states have made it a criminal
misdemeanor to make false claims stating that their animal is an assistance animal or to say they are a handler training an assistance animal. States that have passed laws criminalizing the misrepresentation of service and assistance animals include Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington State. == Controversy ==