The case of United States v. Gregory Estates, LLC presents a valuable learning opportunity for property management professionals, particularly regarding emotional support animals (ESAs). At issue are two commonly misunderstood areas of fair housing compliance: documentation requirements and the prohibition against charging fees for assistance animals. The events described in this ongoing case highlight the risks that come with a lack of understanding of federal fair housing guidelines.
United States v Gregory Estates LLC (W.D. Mo.)
Missteps in Handling a Reasonable Accommodation Request For an ESA
The tenant, Patrick, was a truck driver who initially obtained a dog to accompany him during long hauls. After suffering an accident that kept him at home, he brought the dog into his apartment for a brief period. Because the property maintained a no-pets policy, the property manager instructed Patrick to remove the dog, which he did.
Following this, Patrick formally requested a reasonable accommodation to reside with an emotional support animal. He submitted a letter from his primary care physician that confirmed both his disability and the therapeutic need for the animal. Rather than accept this documentation, the property manager required further evidence—specifically, an ambiguous “ADA document” and proof that the dog had been trained. These additional requirements fall outside what is permitted under the Fair Housing Act. To compound the issue, the manager informed Patrick that he would be required to pay a deposit, a one-time fee, and monthly pet rent—all of which are not allowed for verified assistance animals.
Because Patrick could not provide the extra documentation the manager requested—documentation that was not legally required—his request was denied. His lease was ultimately terminated, and he moved out without ever obtaining another animal.
Legal Implications and Compliance Concerns
The alleged actions of the property manager raise several important compliance issues. Housing providers are required to make reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, which includes modifying policies such as a no-pet rule to allow for an ESA. When a resident submits a valid letter from a licensed healthcare provider (with personal knowledge of the individual’s disability and need), that is typically sufficient to support such a request. Demanding training documentation or unrelated legal forms not only creates unnecessary barriers but can also constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Equally concerning is the attempt to impose financial charges related to the ESA. Charging pet fees, deposits, or additional rent for a verified assistance animal is expressly prohibited. While confusion around these regulations is common, ignorance of the law does not shield a property owner or manager from liability.
Lessons for Property Management Professionals
Although the case remains ongoing and the facts are still considered allegations, the lessons it offers are clear. First and foremost, education is key. Any staff member involved in reviewing accommodation requests must understand the legal differences between pets and assistance animals, as well as what documentation is appropriate to request.
Furthermore, property policies should be regularly reviewed to ensure that rules governing pets and assistance animals are clearly distinguished and compliant with current legal standards. When in doubt, seeking guidance from a fair housing attorney or compliance professional is essential. A well-informed team and up-to-date procedures are the strongest safeguards against unintentional violations.
This case illustrates how even well-meaning managers can create significant legal and financial exposure when they are not fully informed. By staying educated and proactive, property management professionals can better support their residents while maintaining compliance and avoiding costly missteps.