Jackson v. PHRC – Cmwlth. Court – 1-5-24 - reported - precedential
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/46CD23_1-5-24.pdf?cb=1
Held: PHRC finding favor of tenant upheld. The evidence established prima facie cases showing a) failure to grant reasonable accommodation and b)retaliation against tenant.
Parties entered into lease on 2-1-19 for married couple, their two children, and Tenant’s adult dog, an emotional support animal (ESA). Things were ok until dog died in 6-19 and T asked L to approve a puppy ESA named Violet.. L refused, even though T offered to sign contract agreeing to replace carpet if it got damaged. When T again asked L to allow the puppy, L called her husband, who came home and called 911. L then put up no trespassing signs and had her lawyer send T a notice to quit. T moved out shortly thereafter and then filed a complaint with PHRC.
After a hearing at which T presented credible testimony and a detailed doctor’s note establishing her need for an ESA and L did not present any evidence of undue hardship, the hearing examiner entered findings and a proposed order, which the PHRC adopted, directing that L a) cease and desist from discriminating against some who asks for a reasonable accommodation; b) cease and desist from retaliating against someone who engages in a protected activity; c) pay T’s reasonable moving expenses; d) pay T compensatory damages of $5,000; and e) pay the Commonwealth $3,000 as a civil penalty.
The concurring judge called this case “a cautionary tale for landlords. . . . [T]he PHRA provides an important bulwark against discrimination, including discrimination against those with mental health disabilities. Whether a landlord has one tenant or one thousand, he or she must comply with the PHRA. A landlord would be wise to familiarize himself or herself with all legal obligations and consult an attorney.”
