Emotional support dog at center of legal battle can stay home for now, N.J. Supreme Court rules

The emotional support dog at the center of a legal fight between the dog’s owners and their condo association can stay in her home — at least for now — under a ruling the New Jersey Supreme Court issued Wednesday.

The unanimous ruling reverses a lower court’s decision that said the couple could not sue the condo association on discrimination grounds. The association argued the couple could not keep the 70-pound dog, Luna, because of a policy that limits pets to 30 pounds.

But Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, who penned the decision, said emotional support animals “are different from pets and are not subject to general pet policies.”

Wednesday’s ruling is the first time the high court has evaluated emotional support animal accommodation requests under the state’s Law Against Discrimination. One of the dog’s owners — the couple is identified in the ruling only by initials — has been diagnosed with anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and acute post-traumatic stress disorder, and said Luna helped her cope with those issues.

The couple’s lawyer, Talbot B. Kramer, noted that even the condo association’s expert “grudgingly agreed” that the wife has symptoms of mental health disorders. He said the couple is “positive” about the ruling, which went largely in their favor.

“I think in a big picture sense, it’ll make things a little easier because there’s a more definitive standard as to what a landlord or property owner can ask for,” he said.

Rabner said that when housing providers are faced with requests for accommodations related to emotional support animals, the onus is on the providers to prove that the request is unreasonable. Both parties should “engage in a collaborative conversation in advance of acquiring” the animal, he said.

Wednesday’s ruling sends the case back to the Law Division, which must rule on it under the new guidance. Rabner said that while the outcome of whether Luna can stay in the condo complex will be determined by the Law Division, the association can’t demand that Luna be removed from the property.

Rabner’s decision lays out the facts behind the dispute.

The couple moved into the Player’s Place II condo complex in Gloucester Township in May 2018. They agreed to the policy against dogs that weigh over 30 pounds, but the wife’s mental health history led her to seek an emotional support dog.

She wanted a larger dog since smaller dogs are “loud and yappy” and add to her anxiety, she said in court filings. She had letters from doctors who treated her and said an emotional support animal could help her during depressive episodes and panic attacks.  

The husband emailed the condo association to alert them that the couple was probably adopting an emotional support dog beyond the 30-pound limit and inquired about what medical information and paperwork might be required for an exemption. Before the board replied, he adopted the dog.

The board, unaware that the couple had already adopted a dog, said it wouldn’t accommodate “any alleged disability.” When the board found out Luna had been adopted — the board president saw the owners walking her — the board threatened legal action.

The association filed a complaint against the husband in October 2018, and the couple filed a counterclaim in return, alleging the association was violating state and federal anti-discrimination laws and the Federal Housing Act.

The chancery court trial began in 2020, with testimony from medical experts, family members, and board members. The judge dismissed the couple’s claims of discrimination, finding that the woman was not “handicapped or disabled” within the meaning of the law. But the court allowed Luna to remain with her owner, determining the dog does provide comfort and had not been disruptive to other residents.

The association appealed that to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the discrimination claims while also finding that the trial court “misinterpreted relevant statutes” when determining whether the woman was disabled. It also found the judge acted within reason to provide “an equitable remedy suitable for the particular facts of the case.”

Wednesday’s decision says residents don’t have to show medical records to prove they need emotional support animals. However, housing providers can request proof of medical needs, like letters from a doctor.