Cohen v. Clark - 945 N.W.2d 792 (Iowa 2020)

Rule:

There is no law in Iowa or any other jurisdiction that clearly establishes how landlords should handle reasonable accommodation questions with ESAs. Generally speaking, determining whether a situation presents a reasonable accommodation involves "a highly fact-specific inquiry and requires balancing the needs of both parties. The right to physical well-being does not trump the right to mental well-being and vice versa. We hold that other tenants' rights are properly considered in the balancing of needs in the reasonable accommodation analysis. Where the physical or mental well-being of tenants collide, a priority-in-time test should be applied as a factor in the reasonableness analysis. As the well-known maxim goes, "first in time shall be first in right." Nevertheless, we emphasize that priority in time is but one consideration of many in this balancing test rather than the dispositive factor in concluding whether an accommodation was reasonable.

Facts:

Karen Cohen has a medically documented severe allergy to pet dander that causes nasal congestion, swollen sinuses, excess coughing, and, at times, a swollen throat. She moved into an apartment building due to its no-pets policy. David Clark, a neighboring tenant, sought a waiver of the no-pets policy for his emotional support dog, and a landlord in a pickle tried to accommodate both of them. In an attempt to please both parties, the landlord allowed the emotional support dog on the premises while requiring the two tenants to use different stairways and providing an air purifier for the tenant with pet allergies. These measures failed to prevent the tenant from suffering allergic attacks. She sued the landlord and her neighboring tenant in small claims court for breach of the lease's no-pets provision and interference with the quiet enjoyment of her apartment. As a defense, the landlord asserted that its waiver of the no-pets policy was a reasonable accommodation that it had no choice but to grant under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). The small claims court dismissed the case, concluding the landlord's accommodations were reasonable. On appeal to the district court, the district court concluded the landlord should have denied the emotional support dog request due to the other tenant's pet allergies but dismissed the case due to the uncertainty of the law governing reasonable accommodations for emotional support animals. Both tenants filed applications for discretionary review, and the landlord filed a consent to discretionary review.

Issue:

Was there a reasonable accommodation of the ESA?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

There is no law in Iowa or any other jurisdiction that clearly establishes how landlords should handle reasonable accommodation questions with ESAs. Generally speaking, determining whether a situation presents a reasonable accommodation involves "a highly fact-specific inquiry and requires balancing the needs of both parties. The right to physical well-being does not trump the right to mental well-being and vice versa. We hold that other tenants' rights are properly considered in the balancing of needs in the reasonable accommodation analysis. Where the physical or mental well-being of tenants collide, a priority-in-time test should be applied as a factor in the reasonableness analysis. As the well-known maxim goes, "first in time shall be first in right." Nevertheless, we emphasize that priority in time is but one consideration of many in this balancing test rather than the dispositive factor in concluding whether an accommodation was reasonable. Under our highly fact-specific inquiry that balances the parties' needs, the landlord's accommodation of the emotional support dog was not reasonable because the tenant with pet allergies had priority in time and the dog's presence posed a direct threat to her health. The tenant suffering allergic attacks was entitled to recover on her claims of breach of lease and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and remand for an award of her requested damages of one month's rent. To be clear, the holding today was based on the specific facts of this case. Our balancing in this case is not a one-size-fits-all test that will create the same result under different circumstances, such as when the animal at issue is a service animal for a visually disabled person. Nevertheless, the fact that the tenant with allergies was first in time and the dog posed a direct threat to her health tips the balance in her favor in this case. Thus, we reverse the district court's dismissal.