Today's news:

American Airlines/ US Airways forced a woman off a flight because her ESA pig was "wreaking havoc", running up and down the aisle.

BRAD

Brad20K,

I have to wonder how much emotional support a person feels when they are being stared at with contempt and cursed under ones breath as they carry their animal around in the grocery store.

This is great news for us. Basically, the ONLY people that have to deal with ESAs are airlines and landlords. That's it -- everyone else has no ESA laws to worry about.

So, the more the airlines fight this -- the better off we are as landlords.

- John...

This is good news.

John...I agree that the more airlines fight this, the better for us. But my understanding is there wasn't really a "fight" per se regarding any existing rules. The ESA rules already state that the animal must generally behave itself, I believe. That applies to common carriers and to us. So...yeah, nice that the airlines stood up for their rights and (so far) haven't been sued. Maybe if more people see how the policy is being abused it will increase pressure to clarify laws and/or increase protections for those of us on the other side.

My understanding is if an ESA is "wreaking havoc" when I do my in-house visit and/or it is readily observable that the animal is causing damages or the owner is not cleaning up after the animal (lots of feces in the yard/inside; house stinks strongly of animal odor--I'm not talking wet dog...I mean urine, poop, etc), then I can deny the application without breaking the law.

_____. ______. _______. When pigs fly!

Sid: In THIS case, where the animal misbehaved, sure. But our problem, as landlords, is the ongoing use of "faked" ESAs. (And by "faked" I don't even mean actual fake -- I mean that it is way too easy to get a doctor to write you a note that makes it a valid ESA.)

The real issue isn't ESAs that misbehave like this one. The real issue is people using ESA laws to get around no-pet rules.

That is why I say that any time an airline deals with an ESA in some public way, it is usually good for us. In this case, sure, it was a misbehaving one. But, other times, that isn't the case. The more airlines deal with ESA issues, the better it will be for us, I think.

- John...

But seriously, how can people be so stupid to intentially idenify themselves as having emotional problems just to force a landlord to take their pet? Do they think that's going to bump them to the top of the applicant pool?

If I had two applicants and one had a pet and the other an ESA I'm going to gravitate to the one who isn't advertising their mental problems because who wants to deal with that if given a choice? Not to mention preferring the pet owner who is willing to pay for the priviledge of being allowed to have a pet.

This easily to fake business has done nothing but hurt those who have genuine needs as well as raised the cost of things for both tenants and landlords.

Roy, I'd change that from "too many freedoms" to absolutely no common sense or consideration for others.

LisaFL: You just admitted to illegal discrimination. I hope you realize that. THAT is why people are willing to "idenify themselves as having emotional problems" -- because you can't discriminate based on that. And, if you do, you're violating the law.

What you just said (that if you had two applications: one with a pet and one with an ESA, you'd lean towards the non-ESA one) is clear discrimination.

I hope that that is just frustrated reaction here and you wouldn't really do that in "real life." We're all frustrated by the fake ESAs -- but don't put yourself in legal jeopardy because of it.

- John...

LisaFL: Yes, but you're basing your belief of "emotionally stable" on the one without the disability that is that "emotional stability."

It's like saying that you'd take the seeing applicant over the blind one because you think they'd be less likely to bang into something in your place and cause damage. That might SOUND logical to you, but it is still illegal discrimination.

So, if you have a "better qualified" tenant for legit reasons, then so be it. But, so far, your "better qualified" standard seems to be "doesn't have the disability that the other one has." That's illegal.

- John...

John MI, so far as I know we aren't required to give certain groups priority over other folks all things being equal. Just because I chose another applicant doesn't mean I've illegally discriminated against another one I didn't pick.

That could get rather ridiculous. So I pick the couple without children and a dog over the couple with children and no dog. That is a choice I'm allowed to make and doesn't mean I didn't pick the couple with children because I was discriminating against the family with children. Or am I only allowed to pick the couple with the dog over the one with children if the couple was a minority couple? When you have multiple qualified applicants you are allowed to pick the one you prefer. The reason could be as simple as you like their personalities the best or you like to give people with pets priority because they have fewer options.

Will you be telling me next that I can't sell my property either so long as someone in a protected class wants to rent it? As far as I know we still have the right to chose who we think is the best candidate. I'm not really concerned because I probably get 100 or so interested people when I have a vacancy which is rare. I'm simply not going to favor someone over all others just because they're in a special group. That's discriminating against the others.

Another (Amazing) example of how One Person can

inconvenience so Many Others.

This isn't about giving one "priority" over the other. That isn't what you did. You pretty much said that if you had two otherwise equal tenants -- except that one had a "pet" and the other had an "ESA" -- then you would go with the "pet" tenant because they didn't have "emotional stability" issues.

That is NOT giving "priority" to anyone. That is DISCRIMINATING against the one that has told you that they have a mental disability.

I don't see what the confusion is here? You're clearly discriminating, in that case, against the one with the disability. You flat out state it.

Of course, if you have some OTHER reason to take the non-disability person over the other, then so be it. But that isn't what you said or even suggested here. You said that your reason for taking the one over the other was because you didn't want "mental instability" there. That IS the disability specifically!

So, again, no one is telling you that you can't still take one tenant over another for certain reasons. It isn't saying that you have to "prioritize" the disabled person above anyone else. But, again, that ISN'T what you were doing. The ONLY reason you gave in your example was that the disabled person had mental issues that you didn't want to deal with. That was it! That's pretty clearly discrimination based on the disability!

- John...

Well when you have multiple equally qualified individuals you have to decide between them. You can't unlearn what you've learned about them. Landlords are human afterall and all things being equal they are likely going to chose the tenant with less baggage.

Well, when you're in court in front of a judge going "Well, they were equally qualified so I had to decide between them and decided to go with the one without the disability because I didn't want to deal with emotional stability", I wish you luck.

:)

Long story short: As is always said here, find some other reason. It is very, very rare that people are really all "equally qualified" -- WITHOUT having to include disability in that list to determine who to take.

- John...

LOL! John, what makes you think I'd say that? I could come up with any number of reasons for choosing one over another. I wouldn't not pick the one with the emotional issues because of the emotional issues. I'd pick the family with the pet whose kids are enrolled in the nearby school because they're more likely to be longer term tenants. I'm not going to pick the special needs tenant over all others as that would be reverse discrimination. I just that I can think of very few instances where the tenant with issues is the superior choice over all other applicants but if indeed they are they'd get first dibs!

So you'd take the ones with kids over the ones without? Now you're probably violating familial status too. It goes both ways as far as discrimination goes -- reverse-discrimination can still be discrimination. :)

That being said -- all I said was what everyone else was saying: find some other reason then.

And, again, NO ONE HERE suggested that you should "pick the special needs tenant over all the others." NO ONE said that at all -- and yet you keep falling back to that as your excuse. But that isn't what you said. You said that if things were otherwise equal, you'd take the non-disabled one because you didn't want to deal with the mental issues. THAT is what is the illegal discrimination that we're warning about.

You say that you can "think of very few instances where the tenant with issues is the superior choice." It once again sounds like you are trying to INCLUDE THE DISABILITY in that analysis of which is the "superior choice." And that is exactly what you aren't allowed to do.

It may be "hard to ignore" the disability. You're still required by law to do exactly that. IGNORE it and then make the choice. Not INCLUDE it in your analysis of what the "best" choice is.

- John...

LisaFL: It isn't nearly as "ridiculous" or complex as you make it out to me. You simply IGNORE whatever the protected class issue is and make your decision based on everything else.

You simply don't consider whether or not they are black, white, male, female, a senior citizen, a single mother, have kids, have no kids, is blind, has a Service Animal, and so on in making your decision.

That's not "ridiculous." It's simple. It's the law.

- John...

It has always been my understanding that if you have two applicants and either one would be able to qualify under your criteria (assuming you didn't know about the other one), you need to take the one who APPLIED FIRST. That is if you want to avoid getting fined/sued for discrimination.

Well if I get 50 inquiries I can prioritize which to engage first by their replies and which are most likely to qualify. I chose to engage the one that sounds like the best fit and who is most likely to pass the screening.

Don/MO, actually that is only a SUGGESTION, to absolutely avoid the impression of discrimination. But suppose you have an open house and several people submit apps? You can absolutely pick the better application. What if Tenant #1 makes barely 3x the rent, but Tenant #2 makes 4 or 5 times? What if Tenant #1 has a 650 credit score but Tenant #2 has an 850 score?

Yes, I do what WMH suggested. If I take an application fee to process I won't take another until the first either passes, or not.

cjo'h: I certainly didn't put him in charge. Other people did... Lots of them here. :)

- John...

Well, here's what happened to the last person that claimed she was severely allergic to the ESA on board -- she was dragged off the plane by law enforcement:

viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2017/09/27/southwest-passenger-kicked-off-flight-complaining-emotional-support-animal/

Note that you ARE allowed to tell the airline that you can't travel with animals on the plane because you are allergic -- but you need a note from your doctor and need to give it to them in advance so that they can make arrangements. So, people with allergies DO have rights too.

The problem in this case was that she decided ON THE PLANE to announce that she was "severely allergic." Since she didn't give any advance notice, her only option was to get off the plane (because the ESA traveler HAD given proper notice). She then refused to leave -- and the plane couldn't take off. So, they had to call the police to have her removed so the flight could leave.

So, before anyone has the bright idea to get on a plane and THEN claim that you have the allergy to any ESAs or Service Animals onboard, I suggest you give that a lot of thought... :)

- John...

That is simply incorrect. Airlines do not have to "take your word for it" for ESAs. (They do for Service Animals, but not for ESAs.) Airlines are absolutely allowed to ask for documentation of an ESA and usually require it.

(Note that they often do NOT require documentation of an allergy -- just proper advance notification.)

It's a bit funny that you say what you did (allergies have to jump through hoops, but ESAs don't have to provide any documentation) -- because it is pretty much the opposite of reality. When people with allergies run into trouble is when they didn't notify the airline 48 hours before the flight as required. Other than that, it is generally the opposite of what you suggest: most airlines DO require documentation for ESAs and just require proper notification for allergies.

There is no "screw up" on the policy/law in that regard... It's just a matter of people assuming something that is different from the law and reality.

- John...

Nope. EACH AIRLINE INTERPRETS ACAA GUIDELINES SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY. And if you purchase a certificate (fake letter) from someone who has never seen you in real life they can't deny you.

John, go ahead and fill out an application online. Answer every question the exact opposite of what you think you should to get your ESA certification letter. Amazinging, you will qualify for an ESA! They issue a letter to anyone willing to pay them for it. I've tried it on multiple site. Biggest scam ever.

Ok, you went from saying that "they pretty much just have to take your word for it" to "if you have proper documentation, then they have to take you." Those are very different things.

You can't just "purchase a certificate (fake letter)". It has to be from a healthcare professional and renewed each year for most airlines. Yes, I know there are bad "healthcare professionals" out there -- but the reality is it is certainly NOT just "they have to take your word for it for an ESA, but people with allergies have to prove it" like you implied.

From what I can tell, most of the quick-and-easy online system to generate a letter are not nearly as easy as you think any more. They generate a letter, but it is not necessarily from a "healthcare professional" as is required.

In any case, I'm done arguing about this with you. Neither of us is making any progress with the other -- and you've just changed what you last said after I explained why it was incorrect. I see no point in continuing when that is what is happening.

We all know that ESAs are abused for landlords and airlines. But just sitting and complaining about it (and making up false scenarios when it comes to how allergies are handled) isn't going to change anything. If we, as landlords, want this to change, we need two things:

1. Consequences for people that fake ESAs.

2. Consequences for "healthcare professionals" that confirm fake ESAs.

But sitting around arguing about it isn't going to make either of those happen.

- John...

It is easy to get a letter from a doctor. The website connects the customer with a doctor online who can verify he interviewed the customer and signs a form letter. $59.

A ticket agent at the gate told me they don’t have time to examine letters (15 minutes to get 110 people on the plane) and quite frankly don’t care-not their problem. Their job is to get the plane away from the gate on time to keep the company’s ratings up.

Right -- so the issue is the "doctors" that are writing these letters so easily. Not with the laws about ESAs themselves. That is what I've been saying -- the issue is that these people often DO have the proper paperwork and therefore should be treated as valid. It isn't up to US to just look and go "this guy is clearly faking that ESA." We simply don't know -- even when we think we might.

If we want changes made as landlords, we need to stop complaining about what the law allows -- and concentrate on the PROCESS to get those letters. That is what needs to be changed. Otherwise, we continue to look (to the outside world) like we are against people with disabilities when we complain about ESAs. That isn't the impression we should be giving if we want real change to occur.

- John...

I still maintain that us sitting around complaining about the law doesn't help much. The problem is "healthcare professionals." That is the way this needs to be fixed -- by a change to who can write that letter and/or how they have to know the patient. Some states have imposed in-person-only visits, for example -- but it is hard for a state to over-ride federal law.

So, that's what we should be pushing for -- changes to the federal law regarding who qualifies and some sort of clarification on what sort of "interview" is required before a letter can be issued.

But just complaining about the laws doesn't get us very far at all.

And making up scenarios about allergies and ESAs on planes just gets us nowhere...

- John...

Somebody with an allergy can't just pay an online letter writer to issue them an "I have an allergy letter."

Anyone who wants to bring their animal on a plane can. The standards are quite different. Except the person with allergies doesn't typically cause danger, damage or liability to others.

Lisa: As I said, for most airlines, all someone with a severe animal allergy has to do is give the airline 48 hours notice. Then they will arrange that that flight not have pets on it. That's all that is required. No doctor's note. Just PROPER NOTICE.

ESAs need to provide documentation for most airlines.

So, again, this made-up scenario where it is so hard for people with allergies and so easy for ESAs just isn't accurate. It is literally the OPPOSITE of that.

The only people with those severe allergies that are having problems are those that say NOTHING to the airline beforehand and then announce that they have the allergy when they happen to sit down next to someone's pet or disability animal. THAT is when there is a problem -- because, again, they didn't give proper notice.

Again, just getting "fed up" and complaining isn't going to change anything. They aren't suddenly going to change the ESA rules for airlines because we all complained about it here. Real change will come if there is a crack-down on the "healthcare professionals" handing out these letters. Push back on the doctors and others that can write the letter is the only real solution.

Complaining about allergies and the airlines themselves isn't going to change anything. The problem is the people writing the letters to anyone and everyone that asks. That's all I'm saying.

- John...

Pig in a poke...er...plane.