In Players Place II Condominium Association, Inc. v. K.P. (A-60/61-22/088139) (Decided March 15, 2024), the Supreme Court of New Jersey established a test to govern housing requests for emotional support animals, finding that they should be treated differently than pets. Under the Court’s new framework, individuals who seek an accommodation must show that they have a disability under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and demonstrate that the requested accommodation may be necessary to afford them an “equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Housing providers then have the burden to prove the requested accommodation is unreasonable.
Facts of Players Place II Condominium Association, Inc. v. K.P.
Plaintiff Players Place II Condominium Association limits pets “to the small domestic variety weighing thirty (30) pounds or less at maturity.” Defendant K.P. agreed to be bound by the policy when he purchased a unit. His spouse, defendant B.F., has been diagnosed with several mental health conditions, and K.P. notified the Association that he and B.F. were “considering adopting an emotional support dog” that would “[m]ost likely . . . be over the 30lb pet limit.” Before the Association responded, B.F. adopted a 63-pound dog named Luna to live with her as an ESA. After some further exchanges, counsel for the Association wrote that, “should a dog weighing more than 30lbs . . . even enter the Association, the Association will immediately commence an action at law.” K.P. responded that assistance animals are not considered pets and that, if the Association denied his claim, his “next step [would] be to file a complaint…for disability discrimination.”
The Association filed a complaint asserting K.P. had violated the Association’s rules because he had a dog that weighed more than 30 pounds and had failed to register the animal. K.P.’s answer included a counterclaim against the Association for allegedly violating anti-discrimination laws. The chancery court conducted a bench trial and heard testimony from an officer of the Association, multiple medical experts, defendants, and family members. It dismissed defendants’ claims under the LAD and federal law, finding that B.F. was not “handicapped or disabled” within the meaning of the relevant statutes. The court allowed Luna to remain with B.F. on narrow equitable grounds, however, because “this particular dog…offers her comfort and seems to assist her in lessening her episodes,” and “ha[d] not been at all disruptive.”
A divided Appellate Division panel modified and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The majority found that “the judge acted within her discretion in fashioning an equitable remedy suitable for the particular facts of the case.” The majority determined that the trial court misinterpreted the relevant statutes when it found B.F. was not disabled, but it affirmed the dismissal of the discrimination claims, finding “insufficient proof that having a dog that exceeded the weight limit in the Association’s pet policy ‘was necessary to afford [B.F.] an equal opportunity to use and enjoy’ the condominium unit.” The dissent agreed that defendants’ claims were properly dismissed but disagreed with the award of equitable relief.
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in Players Place II Condominium Association, Inc. v. K.P.
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed. It held that a resident of a condominium complex is entitled to request an accommodation to a pet policy in order to keep an emotional support animal.
“Emotional support animals, however, are different from pets and are not subject to general pet policies. ESAs can help people who struggle with mental health issues and other disabilities, and can enable them to function better in their everyday lives,” Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said.
The New Jersey Supreme Court went on establish a new framework to evaluate requests. The individual must first demonstrate they have a disability under the LAD. In addition, they must show that the requested accommodation may be necessary to afford them an “equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” The housing provider then has the burden to prove the requested accommodation is unreasonable.
According to the Court, as part of that process, the parties should “engage in a good-faith, interactive dialogue to exchange information, consider alternative options, and attempt to resolve or narrow any issues.” Chief Justice Rabner added: “If that collaborative effort fails and litigation follows, courts will inevitably need to balance the need for, and benefits of, the requested accommodation against the costs and administrative burdens it presents to determine whether the accommodation is reasonable.”
In this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that there is no longer any dispute that B.F. is disabled within the meaning of the LAD, citing the Appellate Division’s finding that B.F. has a disability that “is demonstrable, medically or psychologically, by accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” The Court also concluded that the trial record showed that B.F. demonstrated that the accommodation will alleviate at least one symptom of the disability. As Chief Justice Rabner noted, the LAD does not require that an ESA be prescribed by a mental health professional or that B.F. establish a specific need for a dog that exceeded the weight limit. The New Jersey went on to explain that the burden then shifts to the housing provider to prove the requested accommodation was unreasonable, which involves a “fact-specific weighing of the relevant costs and benefits.”
Because the lower courts did not address many of the factual issues that are in dispute, including B.F’s need for an accommodation and whether the accommodation is reasonable, the New Jersey Supreme Court remanded to the Law Division for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.